1983-11-21

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved:: That this House regards the Government's failure to take action to encourage the development of Canada's resource industries and ensure their competitiveness in world markets as a betrayal of all Canadians whose standard of living depends upon the resource sector of Canada's economy and calls upon the Government to bring an end to the nationalization of Canadian resource industries which has discouraged investment in Canada; introduce tax incentives to restore competitive advantage and stimulate resource production and further processing in Canada; initiate a program of incentives for research and development; and incentives for marketing activities of Canadian industries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the House will not be surprised that we should have chosen to put aside a day in the busy life of Parliament to discuss the state of our primary resource sector, and therefore the economy in general. Naturally we would have preferred to discuss issues so vital to the well-being of our entire nation and her people in connection with any Government initiatives.
Despite our strong urgings here in the House and the danger signals which we are receiving from the industry, the unions, and the scientific community associated with it, and from the investment communities that invest in the resource sector, this Government sticks stubbornly to a deliberate policy of indifference and neglect. This Government sees our primary resources such as trees and minerals as artesian fountains of wealth which will flow uninterruptedly to be tapped and sapped at every stage without regard to the health of the resource itself or the industries that are sustained by it. It makes no difference whether we talk of our forests which could be, with reasonable care, renewable, or the minerals which we extract and refine and which are such an important part of our commerce and trade. This Government's only interest is what these industries can be made to contribute to satisfy the monstrous appetite for public revenues to support a spending spree over which no one any longer has any control.
My colleagues will, in the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, tell you of some of the horror stories which are the result of 15 years of Liberal mismanagement. We will speak of the imminent crisis facing our resource sector. We will also point out the great opportunities that we have missed in the past and
will surely miss in the future if we fail to act responsibly and decisively to arrest the disease which has been inflicted on private sector industries in general and the resource sector in our economy in particular.
I share the view of many economists who say that Canada could hardly survive as an important and viable trading nation without its resource wealth, if for no other reason than the fact that the volume and potential for growth of one's industrial production is, in the main, limited by the size of one's markets. All of us want to expand our secondary manufacturing capacities and our markets for such products through trade with foreign countries. But it is in the resource sectors wherein lies our natural strength and advantage. It is our resource industries which provide the foundation for the economic structure which permits us to compete in a significant way in world markets. It is our resource sector which is the source of our economic well-being, our prosperity, and social contentment.
Permit me, in the few minutes that 1 have to speak on the motion standing in my name, to give a profile of just two of our more important resource industries, mining and forestry. I think I might best be able to describe the importance of those two industries by comparing our total economic structure to the trunk of a tree which supports its branches and its leaves through a network of roots through which flow its life-supporting juices.
There are now more than 350 small and not so small communities throughout our country, from the Great Lakes to the Arctic Ocean, which depend almost entirely on one or the other of these two industries I have mentioned. These communities are at the end of the root structure or network, generating wealth and nourishment which sustains the life at the end of the branch.
Fifteen per cent of our country's entire work force is either directly or indirectly engaged in the forest and mining sectors. In better times these two industries have generated directly close to $40 billion of industrial product, $25 billion of which is earned from trade in foreign markets throughout the world. The mining sector alone accounts for over 50 per cent of all our rail freight volume, with crude minerals making up 44 per cent and fabricated minerals 9 per cent of all the railways' revenue freight handled. Forty-one per cent of all goods shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway originate from the end of one of the root canals, from a quarry, sandpit, mine smelter or refinery, a sawmill, pulpmill or logging camps some place in mid-Canada or the North.
It is the activities of the miners and the loggers which sustain some form of economic life in over 60 per cent of our

November 21, 1983
Supply
entire geography. The further the roots have been extended, the healthier and stronger our tree has become.
But something has gone terribly wrong. The engine which pumps the vital juices through the trunk is working at only 50 per cent capacity. On the mineral side, half of our mines are shut down or have drastically reduced production. The Government says that it is just another cyclical problem, the result of a world-wide recession in the economy, and is something we will just have to wait out. Of course, that is true to some extent but it would be extremely dangerous to ignore a number of trends and factors which will undoubtedly have a profound effect on the timing and rate or extent to which our mining industry can recover from this deep valley of a cyclical curve.
First, it must be obvious by now to even the most casual observer that there is a fundamental shift of resource-based industrial production toward the developing world. Industrial countries in Europe and Japan, even ourselves and the Americans, are making massive investments in the resource sectors of many developing countries. We see it as our contribution or form of development aid or assistance. But in the case of our industrial competitors from Europe and Japan, it also has the purpose of adding to the supply of raw materials to achieve greater and more diversified access to natural resources and, through it all, to create keener price competition. As well, the World Bank is very active in this field. While all this activity may produce significant benefits to the target countries and the industrial countries which make the investments, it spells bad news for Canada.
A second, equally important factor is the substitution in the manufacturing process of certain base minerals for new materials and a general impact of a new technological revolution of which we are becoming the beneficiaries, or perhaps the victims, at an extremely rapid pace. For instance, the same tonne of coal that it used to take to produce 90 miles of copper wire now turns out 80,000 miles of fibre cable capable of delivering 100 times more impulses. Or an automobile which used to weigh 5,000 pounds ten years ago now weighs only
3,000	pounds. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it would take unprecedented growth in world markets to generate the kind of demand for our base metals needed to restore our mining sector to its original health.
Finally, there is another factor more of a home made kind which will undoubtedly delay the recovery of our industry and therefore the economy generally. That has to do with the unreasonably heavy and crushing tax burden and economic rent structure which all levels of government have loaded on the shoulders of the resource sectors in recent years, a burden out of all proportion to any return the industry has achieved from its investment.
There have been unconscionable increases of certain so called non-profit taxes, such as property tax, fuel taxes and so on. In some cases these charges have increased by over 100 per cent in one year, diminishing the efforts the industry has been making in cutting costs and increasing productivity.
The Mining Association of Canada in its submission to this year's conference of resource ministers gave a number of examples to illustrate this point. Let me quote:
In British Columbia and in the period 1980-1982, costs to the industry have increased by $118.5 million in direct payments arising from a very large number of actions by Government, both federal and provincial, on several fronts. This represents a 105 per cent increase in only two years. For 1983 it is anticipated that further substantial increases have occurred. More specifically, we have evidence to show that in the past 12 years, two large mining operations in British Columbia have seen their property, fuel, water, provincial and municipal taxes escalate from $4 million to $35 million.
In Quebec, salary and fringe benefits, which in 1980 represented 32.2 per cent of the average value per tonne of ore, increased in 1982 to 38.8 per cent of this average value, representing a 20.5 per cent increase. On the other hand, the cost of social policies, indirect taxes and electrical power, which in 1980 represented 9.67 per cent of the average value per tonne of ore, reached a percentage of 15.62 in 1982, i.e., an increase of 61 per cent during the period. So together, the cost of all these items measured, on the average value per tonne of ore, went from 41.9 per cent in 1980 to 54.3 per cent in 1982.
In Alberta, over the past Five years mining companies have experienced percentage increases of over 100 per cent for fuels, 80 per cent for electric power, 75 per cent for freight costs, 60 per cent for property taxes, 85 per cent for provincial health care premiums, 62 per cent for unemployment insurance, and 41 per cent for pension contributions.
Very similar increases could be documented in every province or territory across Canada where mining is carried on. To add to all that, we keep inventing ever more stringent rules with respect to environmental safeguards, health, safety and standards of social amenities in the mining and logging communities.
Now, Sir, you will find me among the very last to suggest that some of the standards which we have all worked hard to achieve should be sacrificed to assure the future health of the resource sector. But it is now painfully obvious to everyone that the industries alone are no longer able to bear all the costs related to these laudable social objectives. We have simply strapped the industry too tight. We are depriving it of its competitive edge and rendering ourselves extremely vulnerable and unprepared to meet the new challenges and forces which have distorted the conventional rules of trade in market places of the world.
Our new competitors, as you know, Mr. Speaker, may not play by the same rules or by what we would consider conventional rules. They are in the main state-owned enterprises, their prime objective, understandably perhaps, being foreign exchange earnings and jobs. Their plants will be heavily subsidized from funds to which we ourselves are contributing. It is as if we are all too eager to finance our own demise.
Well, Sir, one might ask how is the Government on the other side of the House reacting to these worrisome trends? Sureiy it must have the same information we have. To some of us it appears as if its answer to our dilemma is to succumb to the rule changes and attempt to compete on an equal basis with the new players in the developing world and the not so new players in the socialist world. It appears as if it sees states ownership, or at least a very advanced form of state control, in our own country's economy as the only way to survive this onslaught.
November 21, 1983

In a sense we have advanced some way toward that goal. The justification for Petro-Canada, for instance, was to provide us with a window on the world and permit us to trade with countries that refused to deal with the private sector. Our tax laws are designed to permit our companies barely to cover their costs of capital and operation and leave no room for modernization and technological innovation.
"Not to worry," says the Government, "after all have we not given you grants to modernize or subsidies for labour costs when that became your problem?" That may be true, but do you believe, Sir, that this is the kind of climate to which either our own or foreign investors feel attracted? That must be a worry, unless we either believe the Government can create money out of thin air or we assume that after necessary adjustments to our economy have been perfected we might ourselves become eligible some day for loans and gifts from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
What happens if one falls out of favour with the Government on which one has to rely for grants when things get tough, or what happens if it is too late before the bureaucrats in Ottawa get around to a particular problem? The forest industry is a case in point. It is suffering not only from all the pains of the recession and the fact that we have not permitted the industry to build and maintain its own capital resources to ride out the storm, but because we have also neglected to assure that our forests are replenished to provide our mills in the future with the necessary feedstock on the basis of a sustained yield. All of a sudden we have come to realize that we have been mining our forests for the last 200 years instead of farming them and that nature alone is no longer able to replenish itself in sufficient time to meet our demand.
For some mills and towns in mid-Canada, coming to grips with this realization is too late. No matter how many grants the Government might make to bail out a troubled company, we will shortly experience timber shortages in most areas and regions of the country, causing lay-offs and shutdowns not only of mills but of whole towns and regions, because it takes 60 years to grow a tree and sometimes much longer, depending upon the climate and other factors.
1 have little doubt that had it been the responsibility of the private sector to manage the resource, either through direct ownership or long-term tenure, we would not find ourselves in this fix today. The United States, where 60 per cent of the forest land is privately owned and managed, provides us with an interesting model for comparison.
To sum up, we see difficult times ahead for our resource industries and therefore for our economic wellbeing. Any prospects for recovery and new growth are admittedly, as 1 pointed out, influenced by factors and trends over which we have little control. However, much of the pain we must suffer during the recovery period is self-afflicted and can be cured only by ourselves, even though some of the larger corporations and their sector organizations still refuse to speak out in defence of the system from which they have grown, I suppose for fear that the Government might not think kindly of them
Supply
at their time of need. Some do speak out and, more important, the average Canadian has become weary of the dream of a just society which our centrally-structured and planned economy was to deliver, a dream which for some has turned into a nightmare. Canadians now understand that state planners are not very good in creating new wealth and that Government cannot distribute wealth which has not first been created by someone.
It is true that we have built for ourselves a very sophisticated socio-economic structure, one which is still the envy of most of the world and indeed one which can feed on itself for a short period of time. However, like the maple tree that has been tapped too deeply, it will eventually die, and like any tree that has been cut off from its roots, it will rot and decay.
[DOT] (U25)
We draw our confidence for not only bright but exciting future prospects for economic growth and prosperity from the confidence Canadians are expressing in my Party's ability to recapture the promise which inspired earlier generations of Canadians, the promise of a just reward for individual effort and free enterprise. Most assuredly if we should manage once again to set this spirit free, we shall have no trouble meeting and beating whatever our new competition will throw at us in world markets.
I thank the House for giving us this day to state the case and for preparing Canadians for the challenge ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions or make brief comments on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle)? If not, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to address what has to be one of the most critical problems facing our country. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing forward this motion which in part reads:
That this House regards the Government's failure to take action to encourage the development of Canada's resource industries and ensure their competitiveness in world markets as a betrayal of all Canadians whose standard of living depends upon the resource sector of Canada's economy-
While the motion goes on to refer to a number of other interesting and important matters, the essence of the motion is presented in those few words. Indeed, it is a betrayal of many Canadians.
1 want to focus my remarks this morning on one of our most critical resource industries, the forest industry of Canada. One could comment, as the previous speaker did, on the mining industry, the fishing industry and all the resource sectors. By and large the critical comments would be appropriate in terms of how not only the federal Government but the provincial Governments, and in many cases industry itself, have failed to live up to the challenges of the present time.
I want to focus my remarks today on the forest industry. This industry has by and large been overlooked by Canadians.

November 21, 1983
Supply
We have now been in session in excess of 600 days, the longest session of Parliament in Canadian history. We have managed as a result of an Opposition initiative to discuss forestry for a single day.
When you consider the importance of the forest industry and the impact which the forest industry has on the balance of payments in this country, Mr. Speaker, there is more economic impact in terms of our country's trade balance than the entire agriculture industry, mining industry, fishing industry and auto industry combined. That is the immensity of this one industry that we are discussing today. It is of incredible importance.
If you look closely at the statistics, you find that 1.3 million Canadians are involved in one way or another with the forest industry in terms of their jobs. In other words, they are employed either in a direct way or in an indirect way with the forest industry. It involves 1,300,000 Canadians. There are
5,000	forest companies spread from one end of the country to the other. Three hundred communities depend 100 per cent on the forest industry. We are talking about an industry of immense proportions.
1 believe it is fair to say that the problem associated with the forest industry has not been clearly understood by many Canadians. A number who have watched or who live close to the industry have known for many years that it is in a virtual crisis situation. I would say there is a national emergency in Canada today as it touches on that critical resource industry, the forest industry of Canada.
We can look back, however, to a politician from 1871, none other than John A. Macdonald himself, who at that time said that we are recklessly destroying the timber of Canada and there is scarcely a possibility of replacing it. Here we are, more than 100 years later, Mr. Speaker, and we are saying that same thing today in the House of Commons. We are saying that we are seeing the erosion of the most critical industry in the country in terms of the balance of payments and employability of Canadians, and we are seeing the erosion of that industry in every single Province.
When we consider that last year we harvested approximately 800,000 hectares of forest land, it is interesting to note that we managed to replace 25 per cent of that in terms of reforestation. Only 25 per cent of the most critical resource in the country was replanted, albeit additional hectares were replanted naturally. However, there is nothing to say but that the shortfall in reforestation in the country is absolutely astounding.
I would like to focus on a couple of points that simply indicate the critical nature of the problems facing us today. I suppose it is not surprising that Canadians have not been alert to the nature of this problem. After all, 95 per cent of Canadians are urban dwellers and live in big cities like Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Regina and Hamilton. We do not come into contact with the forests of Canada on a
regular basis, so naturally many of us are a little out of tune with the realities out there.
However, Mr. Speaker, if you ask any single individual in the logging sector, the lumber sector, the plywood sector, the pulp and paper sector, the shake sector or any other sector of the forest industry, they will tell you that the industry is in serious trouble today. Every professional organization in the country related to the forest industry will say the same thing. As a matter of fact, 1 remember a number of presentations in the last three years from professional foresters to Members of Parliament on an individual basis, a caucus basis and a professional basis. Those organizations have said that this industry is in serious trouble and that we must do something about it not next year, not next decade, but immediately.
What do we do, Mr. Speaker? Do we take action? Does the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) who is responsible for forestry call for special debates in the House of Commons? Does he call for extraordinary steps to be taken? 1 do not hear a great deal from him, but to give the Minister credit where credit is due, I will say that he has indicated an interest in this area and has recognized some concerns. Perhaps he is having difficulty with some of his Cabinet colleagues when trying to put his money where his mouth is when identifying the problems and their solutions in the forest industry.
I would like to quote from a number of people I feel are representative of respectable forest voices. Jack Walters, the director of the UBC research forest on the West Coast, had this to say recently: "Our forests are in a shambles. It is a tragedy of the first dimension." This is a professional forester speaking out in an attempt to communicate to the powers that be and particularly to the politicians both provincial and federal, that we have a serious problem. Mr. Michael Innes, the manager of forestry for Abitibi Price, the world's largest producer of newsprint, said: "We are gradually running out of wood." He is saying that we are gradually running out of merchantable timber in the country and that we must now transport the product in many cases hundreds and hundreds of miles from the forest to the processing plants. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are failing to replant those forests which stand right in front of the processing facilities.
The forest industry's advisory committee to the Government, Mr. Speaker, recently made a plea for more financial assistance to this troubled industry. The Science Council of Canada targeted the problem clearly, I believe, when it said that 6,000 square miles of forest land is destroyed or wasted each year. The IWA said that we are running out of merchantable timber, that the industry is virtually at a crossroads and that it will either fail or succeed, depending upon the initiative taken by governments and industry. The Quebec and Ontario furniture manufacturers recently brought to our attention that they are now required to import maple logs from the United States because sufficient supplies of maple do not exist here in Canada for use by the Canadian furniture industry.
I would like to go on and relate to you, Mr. Speaker, two or three of the problems that were brought to our attention as parliamentarians and legislators by the Association of B.C.
November 21, 1983

Professional Foresters. That association has brought to our attention the fact that more than 800,000 hectares are harvested annually in our country but less than 25 per cent are planted or seeded. In British Columbia, more than a million hectares heed reforestation and British Columbia is adding
20,000	to 50,000 hectares annually to this problem. Yet the B.C. Ministry of Forests recently had budget cuts in this area which will simply exacerbate the problem.
The number of person-years available to research in the Canadian Forestry Service has declined by more than 50 per cent since 1968. We are talking about an industry in which research and development has never been more needed and demanded than today. Yet the professional foresters tell us that money for research and development in the Canadian Forestry Service has declined by more than 50 per cent since 1968. Increased research is required in almost all phases of forestry management.
The association goes on to say that current spending on silviculture by ail parties, including industry and provincial and federal Governments alike, amounts to about $240 million a year. This is less than 1 per cent of the total value of the annual forest production in the country; we are reinvesting less than 1 per cent of its total value in that critical resource. We can look at some of our competitors in western Europe. For instance, Sweden spends between $700 million and $1 billion annually as compared to our expenditure of $240 million. That is the kind of husbandry with which our competitors are treating their forests in terms of silviculture, reforestation, spacing, thinning, road building, fire prevention and disease prevention. They are spending up to $1 billion annually compared to our paltry expenditure of $240 million. If that does not spell doom for this industry in the long run, Mr. Speaker, then I do not know what does.
The Canadian Forestry Service is a part of Environment Canada and $69.4 million was allocated to the Canadian Forest Service. Within the same Ministry, $146 million was budgeted for the Atmospheric Environment Service and $275 million was allocated for Parks Canada. The Professional Association of Foresters from British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, goes on to say that it is a national disgrace that the federal Government spends twice as much money monitoring weather as it does on our forest industry. That is not to suggest that any cutbacks should occur in weather and climate monitoring, Mr. Speaker, but 1 think that when these people put their professional careers before the public for scrutiny by standing up and saying that this is a national disgrace, we as Members of Parliament cannot stand idly by and say: "Well, 1 suppose that is just more rhetoric about this issue". The people who are most knowledgeable about the state of the forestry industry in Canada are calling the present situation a national disaster.
The association goes on to speak, Mr. Speaker, about a problem in the Province of British Columbia which is, of course, the major forest producer in the country and one of the major areas in terms of available merchantable timber. The association indicates that forestry is the largest economic activity in B.C. It generates more direct and indirect Govern-
Supply
ment revenues and employment than any other sector by far. This wealth comes from forests which are 95 per cent owned by the people of the Province yet less than 1 per cent of the new provincial budget in British Columbia is set aside for reforestation, a significant drop from last year. Can you imagine anything more akin to committing economic hara-kiri, Mr. Speaker, than spending less than ever before on reforestation at a time when the need and the demand is so great?
The association indicates that no money has been allocated this year for improving this resource, and that includes money needed for thinning, refertilization of young forests and particularly for dealing with the 29,000 square kilometers of forest land that sits idle in British Columbia. This is a critical statement, Mr. Speaker. If reforested, these lands could produce more than six million cubic metres of wood annually, and up to 20,000 new permanent jobs in the Province of British Columbia. It further states that more than 40 per cent of the funding was cut for forest protection activities. We have, it is said, more than a million hectares of idle land in the Province of British Columbia which requires treatment to return it to a new forest. At the backlog planting rate of this new plan of the provincial Government, it will take that Government 50 years to reforest these areas. 1 believe there is no question but that we are at a crossroads with Canada's number one industry.
The situation in which we find ourselves in terms of provincial governments, the federal Government, as well as a good part of the industry, is a crisis situation. Fast year the forest companies in Canada lost $500 million, but they were anticipating an improved situation for this year. However, I believe any Hon. Member of Parliament who comes from a forest related area will know that things have not turned around, that the pulp and paper industry is in a very tough situation and that the lumber industry is simply struggling to survive. Most of us with saw mills in our riding will know that they have closed, or shifts have been laid off in the last two or three weeks. That would indicate what is coming down the pipe in the months ahead.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have an ideal opportunity now as parliamentarians to take a positive step and show that, yes, we are concerned and are prepared to do something about it. We must recognize that we have created an evergreen ghetto in this country. What was once a dynamic, thriving community is now decaying. There is now a sense of despair and a demoralization in the ranks. We are turning our backs on that part of our community. However, the evergreen ghetto can be turned around with some positive leadership and initiatives. We have heard speakers today indicate what some of those actions should be. 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would entertain a call for unanimous consent of the House to present a motion asking the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for forestry, to call a meeting of all provincial ministers of forestry early in the new year, to have as the number one agenda item the formation of a federal ministry of forestry. I have circulated a letter to the House Feaders of both the Conservative and

November 21, 1983
Supply
the Liberal Parties indicating that I would be asking for unanimous consent to present such a motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member care to present the Chair with a copy of the motion he has in mind?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if I may say for clarification, realizing that at this point to present a motion would be presumptuous on my part, I am simply asking for unanimous consent of the House to enable me to present such a motion. The motion would in fact urge the Minister of the Environment to call a meeting of provincial ministers of forestry and the number one item on their agenda would be the formation of a federal ministry of forestry. I am asking for unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have a motion before us in the name of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). It is in order for the Hon. Member to present an amendment to the motion before us. However, the Chair has some reservations as to whether the amendment as indicated would be proper as an amendment to the motion, although the Chair would be prepared to receive such an amendment and consider it. If it were found in order, the Chair would put it to the House. However, if this is not what the Hon. Member has in mind by way of procedure, would he please indicate what he does have in mind?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate your patience on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and also the patience of Hon. Members. Not feeling that a motion to amend the motion before us may be in order, 1 was, first of all, seeking unanimous consent of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to put such a motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the right to present a motion. However, there are limits in terms of a motion by way of an amendment to the present motion which can be presented. If the Hon. Member cannot present a motion which is within the scope of an amendment permitted at this stage, then he cannot otherwise present such a motion which would not be acceptable within the normal scope of amendments. Would the Hon. Member read the amendment to the present motion which he has in mind?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your patience. It will be a motion asking the Minister of the Environment responsible for forestry in Canada to call a meeting of all provincial ministers of forestry early in the new year and to have as the number one agenda item the formation of a federal ministry of forestry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member will present the proposed amendment in writing to the Chair, the Chair will consider the proposed amendment before ruling. Meanwhile the debate will proceed.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question whether or not such an amendment is in order, first of all; second, if it were in order and were introduced, since this motion is under Standing Order 62(11) which requires no vote,
what possible power would it have? I would think another forum, perhaps, would be better. Usually there are discussions between the two sides when a Minister is going to be asked to do something so that the Minister can respond properly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has not accepted the amendment. The Chair has merely asked the Hon. Member to present his amendment in writing so that the Chair may decide whether such an amendment is or is not in order. That is all the Chair can do at this stage. The Chair is the servant of the House. This is a limit which is on the Chair at this point. The Chair at this stage invites the Minister of the Environment to make his remarks.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I quite appreciate that you have already ruled on what the Hon. Member was asking. What I would like is the opportunity to question the previous speaker under the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is perfectly in order. The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) wishes to put a question to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. That is in order at this point.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on the motion today and the remarks made by the Hon. Member, I wonder, based on the fact that he made a very strong plea and placed a very strong thrust on the subject, whether he has any comments to enlighten the House with respect to any recommendations he would make in light of the difficult situation of the variation in value of money in various countries where we have to sell our products, the question of competitiveness with other countries south of the border, the American pulp and paper industry? Would the Hon. Member tell us exactly what he would put forward, not in terms of the motion brought forward today by his Party, but what firm recommendations can he make with respect to the difficulties with which this particular industry is faced today? Could he tell us something about that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I certainly would like to respond to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to suggestions as to what may be done to improve the situation in the forest industry, I would like to focus, perhaps, on one aspect, and that is the whole matter of what might be termed "reforestation". 1 can recall at least seven presentations which various organizations related to the forest industry have made to Members of Parliament in the past 12 months. They dealt with such recommendations as site preparation; burning or ploughing for reforestation; planting trees or seeding areas, using genetically improved seed or planting stock; choosing the best species for a site; thinning and spacing trees for optimum growth; pruning and fertilization when needed; reducing losses through fire, insect and disease; improved utilization of our present resource during logging; concentrating our efforts on the best reserved forest areas for the time necessary to grow the crop, and so on. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the need to reforest is accepted as a reality by all who are sensitive to the forest industry.
November 21, 1983

This type of "Government spending" I believe is a misnomer and ought to be called "Government investment". After all, what we are doing is investing in a resource which will presumably pay back to the Government both in terms of royalties and personal and corporate income taxes in the years ahead. Considering that this investment made now will result in returns to the Government in the years ahead, it has to be done now, and it will never be done cheaper. The need for employing people in this particular activity has never been greater. Instantly, once the decision is made to embark on a massive initiative of reforestation in all parts of Canada, it will literally provide tens of thousands of jobs for Canadians in every Province and territory. At a time when the need for job creation in a meaningful sense is so acute, surely a step in this direction has to be one of the most appropriate the federal Government could initiate at this time.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with that aspect. I underline as well the importance of reforestation. Indeed, in my home Province of New Brunswick we have to this date accomplished a great deal in reforestation through various companies such as the Irving Group, International Paper and others.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, taking the term used in the Hon. Member's motion with respect to competitiveness, I was asking what concrete proposals does the Hon. Member have regarding the economics of the day, the problems we have with selling these products? We have the problems of competitiveness, variations in the value of the pound and the dollar and other currencies used by countries we trade with. What does the Hon. Member have to tell the House about concrete proposals and recommendations he would make to the Government or industry to try to alleviate this serious problem he has stressed so forcefully in his speech today?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me identify three or four things 1 think would be appropriate, particularly when it comes to the competitiveness of our industry. For too long our marketing procedures have resulted in Canadian exporters going abroad and saying: "This is the product we have; are you interested?" That as opposed to going abroad, identifying the needs for forest products, coming back to Canada and creating those products to meet specific market demands. That would be a major step forward for many producers in our country. In other words, identify the markets more precisely and take advantage of them, and perhaps become more aggressive in seeking out those markets. Also, a great deal can be done through the federal Government to assist our export sector and assure the necessary financial support so we can compete with some of our major competitors.
The Hon. Member mentioned productivity. When you look at countries with which we compete, western European countries and some of the American countries, one of the things they have in place that we do not is what I will refer to as industrial democracy. They have recognized that by involving all employees in their operation, be it large or small, in a
Supply
meaningful way, their ability to be competitive is that much greater.
As a first step in this direction, and I emphasize only a first step, I suggest that something like the profit-sharing schemes we have seen in certain corporations ought to be looked at in Canada. The United States has over 400,000 profit-sharing schemes; we have approximately 2,000. In other words, we are abysmally behind even the U.S., let alone our western European competitors who are miles ahead of us, not only in profit sharing but in the whole area of involving employees in a responsible way through profit sharing, responsibility sharing and information sharing.
When we begin to democratize the workplace and involve all employees in the productive capacity of our plants, then we will see our competitive advantage increase substantially. However, while we maintain the old-fashioned, neanderthal approach of bosses and workers, we will continue to have difficulties as we act in a mode which was perhaps more appropriate in the 1920s but which has no place whatsoever in the labour management world of the 1980s, let alone the 1990s.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a question to the Hon. Member having to do with the fact that in British Columbia at the present time much of our forest land is being devastated by insect attacks. In his riding there is a problem with the tussock moth and Douglas fir trees. Can he comment on what is being done about that? I think there was a virus they were going to use and there was a problem getting it licensed. Perhaps he could give us some information on that program.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the tussock moth was a major problem in the forests of central British Columbia. The solution was brought to my attention by a number of people involved in entomology who said that the virus was really the only solution. It had some problems but it was the most obvious solution. I brought that to the attention of various officials in Ottawa whose approval was required for its application. I must say they took some extraordinary steps to provide intermediate approval to allow this to proceed, but because of the unavailability in Canada of an adequate source, nothing very much was accomplished.
What that proved to me was that while the bureaucrats were quite conscious of the problem and aware of the solution, they lacked any sort of comprehensive plan and were acting on their own individual initiative. With inadequate funding and a lack of any long-term plan, they were really unable to respond to this mini-crisis in central British Columbia. So rather than politicians planning three or four years in advance, we need to look at it over 40 to 60-year intervals, the time it takes to grow a mature tree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and answers has expired. We can continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 21, 1983
Supply


Mr. Murphy:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise on an issue raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) when he asked unanimous consent of this House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has not yet received the proposed amendment. It is not in order to ask for unanimous consent at this stage of an opposition motion. The Chair has invited the Hon. Member to present his amendment, which will be considered. There has been no amendment presented to the Chair at this point.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to do is to point out that Citation 13 and Citation 14 of Beauchesne say that at any time a Member may ask unanimous consent. That is what the Hon. member did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has now presented to the Chair an amendment and this will be considered in the normal way. The amendment as proposed by the Hon. Member, after consideration by the Chair, is another motion and is inconsistent with the main motion before us in the judgment of the Chair. The Chair regretfully must make this determination.
If the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has a point of order he wants to raise, then it is in order for him to do so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this, but in light of what you have ruled, and I accept that, that indeed the intent of my amendment was certainly not going against the principle of the motion but was opening up some new areas for consideration, I would now ask for unanimous consent for that motion to be presented.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to present such a motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today raises a number of fundamental questions. It is couched in the language that is customary around here and which may come as a surprise to onlookers and watchers on TV, namely the phraseology of Government failure to take action. Of course, I do not agree with that kind of approach and terminology because, as we all know, in particular in relation to the development of resource industries, there has been a lot of government action, a lot of activity and a lot of taxpayers' funds which have been put into the development of our natural resources over the past decade.
I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a question of failure here. The Hon. Member in his motion is putting a basic, fundamental issue on the floor for debate today for a critical analysis on the part of all concerned individuals and Members of this House. In that respect he is doing everybody
a great service by allowing us to look at this issue in a partisan way, and at the same time I hope in a constructive way.
If there is trouble in our resource industries, 1 would be inclined to think it is because we have had a slowdown in the economy, some very serious downturns in certain aspects of the economy. There has been a very serious drop in demand which has affected the prices of our natural resources, particularly in mining and the lumber industry. Certainly to attribute the behaviour of economists in the world to inaction by the Government is not just stretching it too far, but is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Over the years this Government, as colleagues will subsequently demonstrate, has shown an enormous sense of awareness of and sensitivity to our interests in natural resources. As some of the speakers have already indicated, our natural resources represent a substantial form of income for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. They represent jobs in very large numbers and therefore are a substantial part of our Gross National Product and of the wealth that we all share and benefit from.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt very briefly to outline our position on the question of forestry which is very close to our minds and hearts. This House has been made familiar, on a number of occasions since the beginning of the life of this particular Parliament, with our concern for forestry. We have given the Canadian Forestry Service higher status by identifying the person at the top of it with the title of an Assistant Deputy Minister, who was also given at the same time the assignment of preparing, in conjunction with my predecessor, a strategy.
My predecessor released the strategy in 1981 which summarized the problems which are facing forestry in Canada, and also outlined a plan for action. The strategy has its foundation in a national forest policy based on co-operation with the provincial Governments. We recognize ownership on the part of the Provinces of this resource and we realize that there must not be a pulling apart or a moving at cross-purposes between the provincial and federal Governments in this particular field of resources. Rather we must work together and we must both work with industry and unions as well.
As a result, this policy which the federal Government is pursuing is one which rests on co-operation with the Provinces. In this regard we have utilized the forum of the Canadian Council of Resources and Environment Ministers as well as held bilateral discussions with provincial Governments. The forest sector strategy pointed out that, in effect, the virgin forests have been mined and little thought has been given in the past to future crops. We must focus our attention therefore on farming and managing properly the forests and on emphasizing intensive forest management and forest renewal.
Not only must we do this, Mr. Speaker, we must also address problems that we recognized, including the need to protect our forests from fire, insects and disease, to encourage the management of private woodlots, to increase the management of the forests on Indian reserves, to fill the need for
November 21, 1983

professional foresters, and to foster the important area of forest research necessary for all of these objectives.
The role and involvement of the federal Government in forestry is basic to the health of the sector. The federal Government is committed to forestry and will continue to act in its support in concert and co-operation with the Provinces. It has indeed been on this basis that we have been able to achieve a series of accomplishments initiated by my predecessors which 1 hope to continue and build upon. As the first step we felt it necessary, prior to the implementation to the forest sector strategy, to establish a national system for the collection, analysis and dissemination of forestry data in furtherance of intensive forestry management policies, planning and programs. This work is being conducted as a component of the Petawawa National Forestry Institute. Financial resources approved for this program for the period of 1981-82 to 198384 amount to some $5.7 million. It has enabled us to produce the 1981 Canada forest inventory as a basic step.
Responding to the challenges of forest management and renewal, and in the spirit of co-operation, we have committed ourselves to enter into agreement with each of the Provinces in support of programs to meet the reforestation needs of the forest sector. Two agreements have already been signed, one with Nova Scotia of August of 1982 which provides some $30 million of federal funds over five years. A significant program of aid to private woodlot owners is built into this agreement. An agreement with Prince Edward Island was signed in July of this year which allows for federal funds of some $15 million over five years.
In the case of Newfoundland funds have been provided to enhance the existing agreement totalling some $16 million over three years for employment stimulation. I hope that we will soon be able to announce a new agreement with Manitoba. Another agreement is being put into motion with Saskatchewan and with Alberta. Negotiations are well underway with Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and British Columbia. These Provinces are currently under agreements arranged by DREE which expire in March of 1984. I would like particularly to bring to the attention of the NDP critic and the Progressive Conservative Party that the agreements which are now in place total some $400 million over the five past years alone.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forestry Service also prepared a private woodlot development policy. It provides the basis for private woodlot programs in federal-provincial forest agreements. Earlier this year, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) announced the plan for the development of the Gaspe Bas-St. Laurent region. In the program some $19 million will be devoted to assistance to the Groupement Fores-tier for private woodlot management.
All of these agreements, Mr. Speaker, are based on the Government's policy that is tuned in to and focuses on forest renewal. This policy requires a financial commitment on the part of the federal Government and an even larger amount by the Provinces and by industry. It remains to be seen whether all levels will be able to find these funds in times of fiscal restraint.
Supply
Given the high unemployment in the forest sector, we began a job-creation program last year using Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Canadian Forestry Service was provided with $34 million to top up the benefits of unemployment insurance receipts under this program. As I said last Friday, this totalled as a combined amount some $140 million. To date, this has provided 14,000 positions, representing a quarter of a million weeks of employment.
The program was particularly successful in British Columbia where it was known as EBAP, the Employment Bridging Assistance Program. Unfortunately, in June of this year the Province of British Columbia decided to curtail its involvement in this program, sharply reducing its effectiveness. However, the federal Government is continuing this initiative under the new Canada Works Program. We are hopeful that industry and the Provinces will generate sufficient projects to allow us to make a substantial contribution to our forestry renewal objectives with these funds.
The federal Government has historically provided Canada with its basic forestry research and development. This has been done by the Canadian Forestry Service with support from sister organizations such as the Forintek Canada Corporation. The forest sector strategy recognized the situation of underfunding to this institution and is moving in that direction.
The House may recall that Cabinet approved the research and development component for the strategy and provided some $5.5 million to the Canadian Forestry Service for research and development for this fiscal year. The R and D component calls for a substantial increase in funding for subsequent years, including basic support for Forintek to maintain our competitive position for forest products and lead us to forest renewal as called for in the strategy.
In addition to that, however, funds have already been committed to the expansion and upgrading of Canadian Forestry Service research labs across the country, including some $14 million for the expansion of the Pacific Forestry Research Centre in Victoria, some $13 million for an addition to the Great Lakes Forestry Research Centre in the Soo, some $10.5 million for additions to the Laurentian Forestry Research Centre in Ste. Foy and some $22.5 million for a new Mari-times Forestry Research Centre in Fredericton. Also some $17 million has been provided for the expansion of pulp and paper research facilities in Victoria and Pointe Claire.
As part of the Maritime forestry complex in Fredericton, the Government is providing over $10 million for a Maritime forest ranger school. Also in keeping with the spirit of co-operation with the provincial Governments, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Provinces on the co-ordination of forestry research.
I am sure that Members of the House are in part familiar with the activities in support of the control of forest fires which have cost Canada as much wood as is harvested in certain years. The CL-215 water bomber program will contribute significantly to our efforts in fighting forest fires. I believe this

November 21, 1983
Supply
has been a major illustration of co-operation with the Provinces in response to a major problem. Through joint arrangements with the Provinces, we are purchasing some 29 water bombers from Canadair, of which 17 will be owned by the federal Government, four to be used exclusively by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for use north of 60. The entire fleet will be co-ordinated by the Interagency Forestry Centre in Winnipeg which is, in itself, a very good example of federal-provincial co-operation in forestry methods.
Let me say a few words on our forestry initiatives on Indian reserves. I agree with the mover of the motion that the forests on Indian lands have been neglected in the past. It is understood that this resource could provide twice the benefits to the Indian people that it currently provides. We have been recently working in close co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), to develop a comprehensive program of Indian forest land management. A working group of officials from the Canadian Forestry Service and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been set up for this very purpose. What is significant, however, is that this working group is headed by representatives of the Assembly of First Nations.
The basic objectives and principles of this program are that it will provide for economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental benefits for the Indian people through the wise management of forest resources on Indian lands. It will be controlled and administered by the Indian people and implemented at the community or band level. This approach is entirely consistent with the recommendations of the House of Commons Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. Within the context of Indian ownership of India resources and in the control of Indian development, the objectives of the proposed program are: to increase the number of hectares of productive Indian forest land; to increase the sustainable annual harvest on Indian lands; to increase the number of Indian persons productively employed in all aspects of the forestry sector; to increase the number of Indian enterprises actively engaged in direct and indirect viable forestry and forestry-related activities; and finally, to develop the technical, operational and managerial skills of Indian people consistent with the requirements for an economically viable Indian forestry sector.
The financial support for this program will come from several sources and the Canadian Forestry Service will provide the necessary technical and scientific expertise. We are now taking an excellent opportunity for the federal Government to establish a useful and rewarding program in co-operation with the Indian people.
Turning to human resources, it is indeed a potential problem for the future but we have anticipated well what may happen and have taken steps to address it. The human resources development component of the sector strategy addressed this concern and we have been able to provide over $15 million to expand the pool of professional forestry manpower. This
money will provide for forestry scholarships, contract research and development and summer student employment to some 300 students per year. Most of this money will go to Canadian universities and particularly to the six forestry schools across the country, the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, Lakehead University, the University of Toronto, Universite Laval and the University of New Brunswick.
Another area of increased federal activity in response to the forest sector strategy is in international trade. In recent years there has been a successful program of overseas market development of British Columbia forest products under agreement between the federal Government, the Province and the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries. This program will be expanded to other Provinces and negotiations are under way to do so by my colleague, the Minister responsible for DRIE.
An important issue to forestry is the use of pesticides and insecticides. Pesticides are designed to kill organisms that cause environmental disease, insects and weeds. By their very nature, pesticides are toxic and have the potential for adverse effects on non-target life. Management of pesticides requires weighing risks and benefits on the basis of value judgments, including economic and social factors. There is public dissatisfaction with the current management system from both the environmental protection and research development perspectives.
I suggest that two major issues emerge from the analysis of pesticides management. One is the lack of public confidence. Contributing factors to this lack of confidence include confidential information, shifting burden of proof, little public access to the decision points, uncertainty of risk assessments and conflict of interest between environmental protection and resource development.
The second issue is the public concern extending from immediate human health to long-range environmental quality. There are multiple jurisdictions involved, including federal, provincial and municipal, which complicates this issue.
A great deal must be done to improve this situation. For its part, in improving the situation for the forest sector, the Canadian Forestry Service is developing effective and environmentally acceptable materials and methods to respond to the needs of the forest manager and is developing biological and non-chemical methods and means for forest pest management.
I see you are impatient with me, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude briefly. In summary, much has been accomplished since the preparation of the forest sector strategy for Canada, including increased support to forestry schools, expanded forestry research facilities, the development of a national water bomber fleet, forestry job-creation projects and an expanded overseas trade program. There remain two major priorities: increased research and development and the major task of forest renewal. Research and development is essential to protect our forests from threatening insects, disease and fire.
November 21, 1983

1 see you are looking at the time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could request the House to give unanimous consent so I may continue for a couple more minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia:: As 1 was saying, research and development is essential to protect our forests from threatening insects, des-ease and fire, to develop faster growing species, to develop means of managing forest productivity from a shrinking land resource base. The Canadian Forestry Service requires a substantial increase in resources to do its work. A major investment in forest renewal is required by the Provinces, industry and the federal Government to ensure an adequate supply of wood in order to sustain and enhance the forest industry which remains Canada's largest employer.
The evidence is clear: failure to act will jeopardize the 300 or more single industry, forestry-based communities and critically affect our balance of trade. The investments are labour intensive and give employment, particularly to our young people and our native people. However, in times of tight fiscal restraint and low profits for industry, the tendency is for us to postpone these essential tasks. Industry and Provinces must also confirm their resolve to rebuild our forests to ensure that future generations benefit as we are benefiting today.
Can we save Canadian forestry, it has been asked. The plan to do so is there. It has been supported and endorsed by various organizations, including the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, by the Canadian Forest Advisory Council, the Forestry Industry Advisory Committee, industry associations, professional institutes of foresters and by all Parties of this House. The policies and plans are being implemented and the decisions are also being made.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a couple of questions for the Minister which I think are pertinent to the debate. In the Minister's final comments he admitted what we have suspected all along, namely that there are tendencies by both federal and provincial Governments to postpone what the Minister called the major effort that must be made to save our forests. Since the Minister is approaching a critical deadline this Thursday when there is the annual auction to redistribute money that has not been used, and knowing that the Minister is behind in his commitment to come up with this $130 million for forest renewal, is the forest renewal side, which the Minister thinks to be critical, one of the things he has a tendency to recommend postponement of, or is the Minister confident that on Thursday he will get the necessary funds to meet the commitments he has made to the whole forest community?
Second, knowing of the tragedy, that of the resignation of the Assistant Deputy Minister and knowing of the invaluable contribution Mr. Reed has made in the effort to rebuild against all possible odds a federal forestry service, what is the Government's plan to replace Mr. Reed? Also, what is the next stage of the upgrading of the forest service? Is it to
Supply
appoint a deputy minister? As the Minister well knows, and I am sure he agrees with me, the environmental side of his portfolio is overshadowing and taking precedence over some of his other responsibilities. 1 give the Minister credit: his heart is in the right place but he has the responsibility of a dual portfolio. Unfortunately, bureaucrats on the one side are overshadowing his responsibility on the forest side. I would appreciate the Minister responding to these questions.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will try. Both are very difficult questions. The first relates to a decision to be made next Thursday. I cannot anticipate the answer because 1 lack the ability of a clairvoyant to know what the outcome will be. If the Hon. Member wants to know from me, as he did last Friday, whether 1 will put into the cause of forestry all my energy and commitment, my answer is definitely yes. 1 hope we will eventually find the funds required for the implementation of this policy, keeping in mind, as 1 mentioned earlier, that this is a joint kind of effort and that the Provinces will also have to indicate that they, too, put forestry at the top of their priorities in the selection of priorities which they have themselves. That it be recognized by the Provinces is extremely important since, after all, they own some 90 per cent of Crown lands.
As to the departure of the Assistant Deputy Minister, it is a great loss but not a tragedy because the departure was the wish of the official himself. He came to Ottawa with the intention of filling the position for three years and his three-year tenure expired at the end of October. It is a position that will be very difficult to fill by someone else with the same commitment and dynamic drive that Les Reed demonstrated during his three years. He has left with us a very important legacy. We are, however, in the process of looking for potential candidates willing to fill the position.
As to the final half of the Hon. Member's second question, 1 do not see, in all frankness and having been in the Department for only three months, a situation whereby the Canadian Forestry Service is overshadowed by other sections in the Department. 1 think it has all the scope and its place in the sun, as have other interests in Environment Canada. Certainly as long as I am in this portfolio it will have my ear and fullest attention.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. In all modesty the Minister has not mentioned his qualifications. 1 would point out to the House and to the people that the Minister is a professional forester. He is to be commended.
The Minister mentioned in his remarks the very substantial amount of $400 million which was DRIE money. That money will certainly not all be channelled through forestry even over a five-year period, which would amount to $125 million a year because the budget of DRIE in the past has been $600 million or $700 million in total a year.
One other thing. Since he wears the hat of the Minister of the Environment, I must tell him 1 am concerned and greatly interested in the acid rain problem. We on the committee, and I think the Minister as well, are aware of the possibility of

November 21, 1983
Supply
grave injury to reforestation, to the small seedlings coming up. I hope his Department is giving top priority to that as well.


Charles L. Caccia: Dealing with the second point first, Mr. Speaker, the answer is definitely yes. We are devoting all possible attention to the long-term impact of acid rain on forest growth. The scientific data on this continent is very recent and young. However, there is enough evidence in Europe to make a strong case about the serious damage and effect of acid rain not only on seedlings but on grown-up stands. This is the kind of persuasive message which I have to bring to our American friends whenever I meet with them on environmental issues, particularly on acid rain, in Washington, Indianapolis or in New York.
1 report with regret to the Hon. Member that the operation of convincing our friends to the south is not an easy one because in some quarters they are still looking for scientific evidence to prove the point the Hon. Member made so eloquently a moment ago. This is very serious because we are talking about long-term damage for which there is already evidence in Scandinavia and Central Europe. While I can assure him that we are paying a lot of attention to the consequences of acid rain on the growth of existing stands, 1 also report to him the fact that we are still in the phase of trying to convince certain quarters south of the border. My counterpart in Washington, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is having an absolutely miserable and difficult time convincing his own administration that this issue deserves attention in order to reduce damage to American forests themselves. It has now reached a point where unless there is clear indication of leadership on the part of the American government, we will be engaging in this debate for a long, long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Mr. Manly:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order concerning the matter of procedure, with one question on the other side and then a question being allowed from this side. I have an important question for the Minister concerning his statement today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has used its best discretion. Unfortunately the Chair did not see the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) seeking the floor. However, he was recognized earlier this morning, and the Chair is now recognizing someone who was not recognized earlier.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister. First, he pointed out that money had been spent under Section 38 to help with the EBAP program in British Columbia. He went on to say that the program would be continued under the Canada Works Program. Will the Minister admit that there is no specific forestry component in the
Canada Works Program and that forestry projects will have to compete with a wide range of very worthy projects for a limited amount of money? There is no specific forestry amount of money. Could he answer that question?
Second, he mentioned something about which many of us are very concerned, that his Department was working to develop biological and non-chemical forms of pest control. Could he provide the House with more information on how much money is being spent on that, at what stage of development it is, and when we can expect some real results from the process?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to give the Hon. Member an answer to his second question specifically, but 1 do not have that figure available or at hand. 1 suggest that he put that question on the Order Paper for a reply in due course.
As to the forestry employment program, my understanding of the creative utilization of funds under Section 38 is that it exists and is available, and that we have renewed with the British Columbia forestry sector at the end of September an agreement that was expiring at that time. 1 do not see any conflict or restriction in availability of funds. Funds under Section 38 continue to remain available. 1 hope the forestry sector, through initiatives by public institutions or private institutions, will continue to make extensive use of funds under that Section.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the question period for a short period of time, as there are Hon. Members on both sides seeking to be recognized?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to follow up with the Minister responsible for forestry the question 1 asked the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) earlier. It concerns the motion before the House today. Setting aside the negative aspects of it and dealing with the positive side, I want to ask the Minister about a situation which exists in New Brunswick. First, I can tell him that we certainly applaud the forestry school at the University of New Brunswick and all other efforts carried out by DREE and by the federal Government in making available funds to protect this all-important industry which represents billions of dollars annually to the country.
My question relates to a difficulty which the International Paper Company is experiencing in New Brunswick. The Minister mentioned co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments. Could he speak with his counterparts, the Minister of Commerce and Development and the Minister responsible for natural resources in New Brunswick, regarding the high power rates? We know of the moneys that have been made available to Lepreau and nuclear generating stations in New Brunswick, moneys which have been made available for renewal of equipment and plants through DREE. Now we have this difficulty. If one of the pressures on being more competitive is high power rates, would the Minister responsible
November 21, 1983

for forestry agree to consult with his counterparts in that Province to see if there are any ways or means which can be found to alleviate the pressure and to have the Ministers responsible in that Province through their Premier agree to some alleviation of pressure by reducing power rates for that plant at this time?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make note of the Hon. Member's intervention and the concern he has expressed. 1 have an opportunity twice a year to meet with colleagues in charge of forestry and environmental matters and 1 will certainly raise it with them at the earliest opportunity. I understand the difficulty posed by the fact that high power rates tend to have an effect upon the cost of the final product and that, therefore, it may be disadvantageous to some aspects of the New Brunswick economy. This is the reason the federal Government and the New Brunswick Government entertained an agreement for the construction of a new nuclear plant in order to increase the quantity of power available and thus hopefully reduce rates. Having said that, I will indicate the Hon. Member's concern to my colleagues and discuss that matter with them at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated that forestry did not take a second-rate position in his Department. Pursuant to that, I would like to ask him whether he had frequent and regular meetings with the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for forestry. Was his telephone open to the Assistant Deputy Minister, or did he have to go through other Deputy Ministers to present forest problems to the Minister? It seems to me the fact that we have no better than an Assistant Deputy Minister for forestry would indicate that it is very badly subordinated, though it is the most important of the trade-generating industries in the nation.


Charles L. Caccia: I would like to reassure the Hon. Member that he need not worry about accessibility. On several occasions I indicated to the Assistant Deputy Minister that he should feel free to call me and to approach me on matters related to his responsibility. I invited him to do so on several occasions.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak this morning on the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Normally the only time we get to talk about resources in this House is when the Government comes forward with a new proposal for yet more tax burdens on a resource industry or comes in to nationalize an industry either through the back door or front door.
My intention this morning is not to examine any one resource industry. We were pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River indicating the importance of various industries. However, my intention is to examine the reasons for the failure of this Government's policies in these areas, the philosophy that it maintains and its ideas which have given rise to the failure of forestry, mining and other resource industries.
Supply
Before 1 get into that, 1 would like to preface my remarks with a couple of observations. The first observation that is apparent to almost every Canadian is that we are the most resource-rich nation in the world, especially when you take relative populations into account.
The whole history of Canada, or a very great part of it, deals with the development, exploitation and utilization of the natural resources of this country. It was in the sixteenth century that fishermen from European ports, Portugal, Spain and other countries, first came over in small vessels to exploit the riches of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the fur trade blossomed. It was probably the most important industry in New France. The fur trade helped to develop the rest of the hinterland outside of that small area in the St. Lawrence Valley. The fur traders went far afield and penetrated into the vast interior.
1 was fortunate to receive just the other day a publication by the Fur Council of Canada entitled "The Fur Industry in Canada". It gives us a description of the proud history of the fur trade. It is sad to relate that at the present time the fur industry is under something of an attack. The trappers have been faced with inequities in taxation and are finding it tough to survive. An even greater threat to that industry are certain people who do not like to see fur-bearing animals taken in Canada. It is incumbent upon this House to protect the trapping industry.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we got under way with the exploitation of our forest resources and agriculture, especially western Canadian agriculture potential. There was a taking up of agricultural lands in western Canada. The forests of eastern Canada, especially in the time of the continental policies of Napoleon with regard to the timber industry of New Brunswick, first came into being.
In the twentieth century, Canada and Canadian resources have really come into their own. We have had the development of mines. Around the 1940s we had development starting in the oil and gas industry, especially in western Canada. That industry is now finding new worlds to conquer offshore in eastern Canada and in the Arctic. In this century we have developed hydro-electric resources. There is more to come, of that I have no doubt.
It is interesting that we have to take into account that a lot of our natural resources can only be developed and exploited if we have the knowledge available so to do. We must have the capital available to develop them and find people who are skilled in the exploitation of resources. For these reasons, we on this side are most concerned with the continuation of research and development in this country on natural resource issues and the training of personnel.
With all our resources, Canada ought to be the richest nation on the face of the earth. In fact, in the fifties and sixties it looked like we were getting there. We were second only to the United States in standard of living throughout the world.
That brings me to my second undeniable observation, that since the present Government under the Prime Minister (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 21, 1983
Supply
Trudeau) took office in 1968, everything has slid downhill. We are now no longer second in standard of living of the world but fourteenth, fifteenth or sixteenth. We have slid downhill. The underlying reason for this is that we have neglected our resource industries and those who work and invest in our resource industries, those whose livelihood depends on the forests, mines, agriculture and fishing. Had we husbanded our resources and adopted policies conducive to their continued development, we would not be fifteenth in the standard of living table in the world. We would be first, where we deserve to be and by rights should be.
Let us look at the over-all policies and the reasons Members opposite have failed to increase the Canadian standard of living but have allowed it to decline, and the reason there has been failure of resource industry policy. The first reason has to be that hon. gentlemen opposite-a bunch of academics, professional politicians, people with an administrative background-have had little experience in the outside world. Gentlemen opposite have not been involved with industrial organizations. They do not come from areas where resource industries are of fundamental importance. They are more interested in philosophical ideas, particularly in changing the way of thinking of people. They love to do that to Canadians. They want everyone to think a certain way. They engage in advertising and everything else in order to get people to think their way rather than concentrate on practical, economic issues.
For example, for two years this House was preoccupied with the constitutional issue. It was a manufactured issue. I did not come across a farmer, miner or logger three or four years ago who had that at the top of his list of priorities. There was nothing wrong with the Constitution we had before, yet we spent two years, to the exclusion of almost everything else, talking about a Constitution when we should have been talking about getting the economy of Canada back on track.
Gentlemen opposite are imbued with these socialist ideas. They think that the state should control and regulate every aspect of the economy and other areas of life throughout Canada. They think that as the Government they can direct everything that goes on in the country. It does not work. Instead of having one huge pyramid with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at the top, giving direction to and regulating everything that goes on in Canadian life, there should be a series of pyramids. Much of industry should be fairly independent of Government. The Government should give only the most general direction. Industry should be relatively independent. Universities and education facilities should be independent. As well, the artistic community should be independent and we should have these independent societies operating together rather than having everything directed by the Government.
We see that the Government is using its direct influence to get into the resource industries. An example of this, of course, is Petro-Canada. I cannot see one good reason why we need a
nationalized oil industry in Canada, without which we were doing far better. What has happened is that the Government has taxed every gallon of gasoline and heating oil that Canadians buy in order to fulfil its socialist ideals.
The situation with Petro-Canada is bad enough. It was only recently that, through the use of closure, the Canagrex Bill was forced through the House of Commons. The Government's intention for Canagrex is clear. It wants to get a stranglehold grip on agriculture in Canada, which is another area that ought to be independent.
Socialist views have come to the forefront with Bill C-48 and its back-in provisions. If someone acquires some land and drills an oil well or a gas well in what the Government calls Canadian lands but what I call territorial lands and risks his own money to find something that looks profitable, along comes the friendly Government of Canada, through Petro-Canada, saying: "Okay, we are going to take over 25 per cent of this venture". I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if this is the way to encourage enterprise in the nation.
The Government has the idea that all resources belong to the state and that anyone who gets into the resource exploitation or development industry is entitled only to what is called an economic rent. That means that the investor takes his risk, spends his money, devotes his time and energy to something, and if it does prove to be successful, somebody from the Government of Canada will come along and say: "We figure that you should get 7 per cent on your investment and that is all you are going to get. We are going to take every other nickel that you make and put it into our coffers because the state owns the resources."
This concept is evident in the progressive incremental royalties that apply to oil and gas exploitation on federal lands under Bill C-48. Unfortunately, this concept is now so pervasive throughout Canadian government, not only the federal Government but provincial Governments as well, that it goes almost unchallenged. I can tell you that the concept of the state owning all of the resources is wrong. Resources should belong to the finders of those resources and the people who have worked to make a go of them.
In the case of minerals and oil and gas, the people who find the ore deposits or the oil and gas on Crown lands should become the owners of those resources and deposits. If a fisherman were to find a new area for fishing, he should be entitled to extraordinary profits from developing that new area. I am ashamed to think of what is happening within the Department of Fisheries in Winnipeg where officials are trying to use the same concept of economic rent on fisheries. A fisherman will be entitled to make so much money a year and no more. If he makes more than that amount of money, the Government will take it all back or tell him to stop fishing because he has been too successful.
In the case of farms and agricultural operations, the concept is not so much one of the resource belonging to the person who finds that resource but rather one of the persons who puts the effort into breaking the sod where it has never been broken before and building up something which will be a part of
November 21, 1983

Canada becoming the owner of that resource. In exchange for doing that, that farmer or agriculturalist should be entitled to ownership in the resource, which in this case is agricultural land. That is the concept that existed when the western Canadian Prairies were settled. I think we must get back to that way of thinking rather than the concept of the state owning everything and perhaps allowing a little bit of farming, a little bit of mining and a little bit of fishing to take place while saying: "Do not by any means make any profit out of those ventures because, if you do, we will take it all back in the form of taxes and royalties".
We on this side of the House agree that resource exploitation should be subject to taxation. I am not saying that there should be no taxes on mines, farms and oil fields. However, these taxes should not be designed to skim everything off the top and leave nothing. In cases where some people are eminently successful and come up with a greatly profitable venture, those people should be and deserve to be highly rewarded. It is necessary that some people be successful and rewarded in order that their success act as an incentive for others to do the same, to risk money in prospecting ventures and to risk hard work in developing agricultural lands.
Last, Sir, we recognize that Members opposite, especially those on the Treasury benches, are by and large people from the central metropolitan areas of Canada. They do not have a first-hand knowledge of the resource industry and they do not have a feeling for the resource industry. The fact is that enterprise in Canada is by and large to be found in the extremities of the country. The core, Sir, has a tendency to grow soft. Ideas that result in the exploitation of the hinterland of Canada where those resources are located and result in that money and wealth and power being brought into the central area of Canada find favour with the present Government.
In the few moments left before one o'clock, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, an editorial in the October 13 edition of The Northern Miner. That editorial contrasts the $275 million combined grant put up by the federal and Quebec Governments to build a helicopter plant in Montreal, which admittedly is to create some 3,700 jobs over 20 years, with the gold mining developments in the Hemlo area of Ontario. It is expected that as a result of new gold finds in that area, some 5,000 to 8,000 people will move there and the direct number of jobs created will be very much equivalent to those created by the so-called investment of some $275 million of taxpayers' money in Montreal. However, the big difference is that in the Hemlo area, the situation was all brought about by private investment. Not one dollar of taxpayers' money was expended. What will happen is that that privately developed area will be taxed in order to provide funds for the helicopter plant in Montreal.
This is the approach that is taken by the Government. The Government will not allow economic developments to occur naturally according to market conditions in Canada. It insists that it has the responsibility to redirect funds into the areas in which it can mine for votes.
I see that it is rapidly approaching one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you would be kind enough to allow me to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. He cannot call it one o'clock unless he has the unanimous consent of the House.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last week Royal Assent was given to Bill C-155 and the Liberal betrayal of the farmers of western Canada was completed, a betrayal which will have its impact on all of Canada for a long time.
It could have been a glorious day, a day of triumph for the producers of our nation, a fair deal for the grain growers, a chance for the cattlemen, the hog raiser and the processors of the West to realize their great potential. Exports of Canadian grain could have been greatly increased from the present $6 billion, and the economic spin-off in direct employment of at least another 25,000 jobs could have resulted, with the manufacturing industries of central and eastern Canada reaping the benefits of some $3 billion for farm machinery alone. Yes, it could have been a wonderful day had the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Liberal Members of Parliament in the House not betrayed western Canada by refusing to legislate Gilson's recommendations.
Instead, it was a black day. Grain farmers in western Canada will have to pay double, and then five times the Crow rate, with an already shrinking income. The cattle industry, the hog industry, and the processers of western Canada have had their hopes dashed to the ground. There is joyous laughter in the board rooms of the railways, but only tears and dismay and disappointment in the homes of western Canada.
The Liberal majority forced the Bill through over the opposition of the Progressive Conservative Party. The only hope for Canada's agriculture now is that, out of the ashes, will come a Progressive Conservative Government which will be fair to all regions of Canada.

November 21, 1983



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has introduced a new program to help business in Canada. The new Regional Industrial Development Program, also known as RIDP, has received praise from all sectors of the economy. Last Friday, I was able to attend a seminar at Black Lake in Frontenac County, where industrial commissioners, mayors and businessmen expressed their satisfaction with the Government's decision to create a one-stop program for providing assistance to business. However, there is a problem concerning levels of financial aid. For example, since industrial parks in the riding of Levis are located in a level II area, theoretically they will receive less aid than level III sites on the Quebec City side. In this particular case, industrial parks in Lauzon, Saint-Romuald and Laporte, located several kilometers from the Quebec City Urban Community's industrial park at Saint-Augustin will be at a disadvantage because of the way dividing lines were drawn, which, I feel, should be easy to correct by changing Acts and Regulations accordingly. As things are now, for a million-dollar investment, the mere fact of selecting Saint-Augustin on the Quebec City side, instead of the Laporte industrial park in the riding of Levis, would mean a difference in funding of SI50,000, although these are two areas facing each other on either side of the St. Lawrence. I therefore urge the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) to make appropriate changes for the benefit of a program that has otherwise been well received.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed sad to see what has taken place, the Turkish Cypriots' unilateral proclamation of independence in the occupied part of Cyprus. This action has dangerously increased the tension already prevailing in this sensitive part of the world. There is no doubt that mainland Turkey remains internationally exposed because the present situation is exclusively the result of the continuous occupation by its troops of a large part of Cyprus. Turkey must accept full responsibility for this move which has undermined the intercommunal dialogue and the initiatives of the Secretary General of the United Nations to promote an agreed, just, and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem.
It is encouraging to see, Mr. Speaker, that many countries around the world, including Canada, have protested the deplorable action which has taken place. Commendable as this may be, words alone, after a time, have a way of dissipating
into thin air and becoming soon forgotten. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government not only to restate its strong disapproval of an independent Turkish Cypriot republic in Cyprus, but to underline this by calling on all nations to undertake further diplomatic actions and other deterrents which would reverse the deplorable decision that has been taken in occupied Cyprus.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, during the past weekend, the Premier of the Province of Quebec, at a meeting held in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, expressed his Government's intention to proceed with Bill 38 which prohibits municipalities from accepting money from the federal Government. It is most unfortunate that the Premier of Quebec is claiming that the federal Government refused to sign an agreement with Quebec and was distributing funds without prior planning. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it has never been the Canadian Government's intention to ignore the Constitution and deal directly with the municipalities. We have already had discusisons, and we even signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec for handing over the money to the municipalities, an agreement that was broken by that very same Government. We are still willing to continue negotiations and pursue them so as to reach an agreement with this Government. It is, however, unfortunate that the Ministers responsible within the Quebec Government should cancel, without notice, meetings scheduled with our federal Ministers, and that they do not seem to want to reach an agreement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out that the Canadian Government has concluded similar agreements with the nine other Provinces and the two Territories, and I find it difficult to understand why we cannot conclude a similar agreement with the Government of Quebec.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we in this House have learned that a number of senior executives of Crown corporations, and other Cabinet appointees, may be earning as much $227,900 per year. The fact that Canadians are kept in the dark about the salaries of Jack Horner, Claude Taylor and Pierre Juneau is unacceptable government secrecy.
In the private sector this same attitude prevents us from finding out the salaries and benefits of our corporate elite from
November 21, 1983

Canadian sources. When 1 and others have risen to complain about those salaries and benefits in the private sector exceeding $500,000, we have had to quote from American sources. Surely, in the spirit of open Government and freedom of information, we should be entitled to these figures from published Canadian sources.
When public and private sector leaders preach restraint, they should be practising it. When these same leaders are reaping the benefits of a strained economy, they should be subject to scrutiny by the public. When they accept outrageous and immoral salaries and benefits, they rob from the needy in our society. They rob jobs from the jobless, food from those who are hungry, and homes from those who are in need of shelter.
Clearly, Canadians have a commitment to retain peacekeeping troops in Cyprus at this time. But it is also just as clear that Canadians have been sending soldiers to Cyprus for 19 years and there is still no sign of an imminent resolution to the dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In fact, the latest developments in Cyprus demonstrate clearly the futility of simply providing peace-keeping troops. Those troops must be viewed only as a mechanism for keeping the peace while a permanent solution is being negotiated. The United Nations plays an instrumental role in both of these functions. Therefore 1 wish the UN Secretary General well in his effots to mediate the Cyprus dispute. 1 call upon Canadians to continue to have faith in the United Nations as a mechanism for fostering world peace.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada continues to support the changing role of women in Canadian society. Women must play a full part in all facets of life and we parliamentarians, of both sexes, encourage their participation and hope that opportunities will increasingly open up to ensure that participation. However, in one segment of society progress has been remarkably slow. 1 refer to the church.
Although some denominations have made real efforts, by and large the established churches have been slow in recognizing the full worth of women and their potential for enhancing things spiritual across the nation. We must be able to look forward to the eventual ordination of female clergy in all churches. One would hope that churches that wish to be heard on a variety of social issues would first make a real effort to improve the status of women within their own organizations.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, having just returned from a visit to the United Nations General Assembly, I am more convinced than ever that the UN plays a unique and important role in fostering world peace. We, as Canadians, should be aware of the fact that the UN is one of the few forums through which smaller powers can have an impact on world affairs. This is an especially important point to remember in light of the renewed dispute in Cyprus. Canada maintains a contingent of about 500 soldiers in Cyprus as part of the UN peace-keeping force, so now, more than ever, Canadians must place their trust in the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly as a means for resolving the Cyprus dispute.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Government has moved very quickly on the Crow rate. Of course that affects constituencies such as Dauphin-Swan River. In view of the fact that this decision has been made on the Crow rate, I urge the Minister to examine seriously the impact on farmers surrounding some of the rail lines presently slated for abandonment. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the line which goes through Amaranth, Manitoba, which is slated for abandonment in August, 1984, and also to the line that goes through Fork River and Winnipegosis, otherwise known as the Winnipegosis subdivision, which is slated for abandonment in 1985.
It is very important that these lines be kept open so that farmers do not have to transport their grain an inordinate distance to market. It is also very important that the Minister review the operations of the western arm of the CTC.
In Manitoba we have had approximately 18 rail line abandonment hearings. It is a shame the way the western arm of the CTC has been operating. Of the 18 hearings held, all have been decided in favour of the railways. Now is the time that decisions should be made to assist the farmers, so I urge the Minister to look very seriously into these matters, reverse the decisions of the CTC and see that these lines are kept open so that farmers can transport their grain.



ATHLETIC BIAS IN FAVOUR OF TALL PARTICIPANTS

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, competitive sporting events provide major entertainment for those actively participating and those attending as spectators. Yet there has crept into the field of athletics, especially in rowing, basketball, volleyball and swimming, an overwhelming bias in favour

November 21, 1983
Oral Questions
of the tall and the very tall. It is, in a sense, unfair and discriminatory that in so many sporting events height is an essential asset to achieve acclaim and recognition. Indeed, many of the enjoyable sporting events are almost exclusively the preserve of the very tall. Yet many team events could probably be played as spectacularly and expertly by players of shorter stature if the handicap of height could be eliminated.
The merits of existing rules in athletics should be reviewed. Ways must be found to remedy the seriousness of the height bias in competitive sports. This would promote greater participation of the general public in sporting events. In international events, athletes from Asia, Africa and Latin America would stand a greater chance of success when competing in events where height bias now exists. Such changes would be more in keeping with the first charter of the Olympic Games which proclaims "They assembled, the amateurs from all nations, in fair and equal competition."



NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Bill Dornm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, not very long ago the federal Government introduced a program called NEED, the purpose of which was to fill a gap so that when people no longer qualified for unemployment insurance benefits they would be able to requalify themselves through ten weeks' participation in this Program creating jobs. This was the Government's intention not very many months ago.
I am saddened to report to the House of Commons that, during the course of this Program, the Government changed the rules. What the Government has done in Peterborough is to say that people in Peterborough now require 16 weeks in order to qualify, rather than ten weeks. It is grossly unfair and discriminatory, and I call upon the Government to reverse its position and go back to the original Program of ten weeks on NEEDs in Peterborough so people can then qualify for UIC, rather than changing the rules, as it so often does, in the middle of existing programs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Friday, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
said that all Liberal members were in favour of Bill S-31. That day, however, the distinguished Member for Saint-Denis showed his fierce opposition to the Bill when he said the following, and I quote:
The Bill is going to die in the Senate any way.
The Member for Saint-Denis, who is an experienced and respected Member of this House, was very definite about this. Considering the disastrous effects the Bill would have on an instrument that is vital to the economic well-being of Quebecers, could the Acting Prime Minister confirm, as was said by the Member for Saint-Denis, that he intends to let Bill S-31 die on the Senate Order Paper?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of various comments that were made by the media in Quebec and I shall quote the newspaper Finance of November 14, which said that Ottawa's reaction was legitimate: "It would be dangerous to let Minister Parizeau decide how broad sectors of the Canadian economy should develop". Regarding the Hon. Member's question, 1 may add that I believe that the Members of this House and this Party will have an opportunity to examine in committee all amendments tabled by the Minister and to consider this question in the House, and that our Members will give their answer in the final vote on this Bill.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to hear it from the organ grinder and not the monkey.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacBain:: No brains and no manners.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Government is trying to do in a round about way what it would otherwise be afraid to do directly, and we are going to get at the truth behind Bill S-31.
The Member for Saint-Denis-a respected and experienced Member of this House and excellent Cabinet material, more so than some Members who are in Cabinet today-said that Bill S-31 was going to die a natural death. Considering this categorical statement, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Government intends to withdraw Bill S-31, and if so, 1 would ask the Government to withdraw it today, instead of continuing a debate that has become increasingly useless.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.
November 21, 1983

[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, what kind of no is this? We have no way of knowing!
1 am going to get back to the Acting Prime Minister, because this is a Bill that would have disastrous consequences for Quebecers and because the Government is putting up a smoke screen and lacks the courage to say what it wants to do about this legislation-the Member for Saint-Denis knows, however, and he said most definitely that the Bill would not be passed.
An Hon. Member:: Question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Considering those facts, and also considering the fact that last Friday, the Minister based her argument on the objections of the Provinces, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House which Provinces objected to the Bill, and could he also table in the House any relevant correspondence?


An Hon. Member:: You are a clown!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that before any Bill can become law it has to pass the two Houses of Parliament. In this particular case the Bill is before the Senate. Before it becomes law it will have to come to the House of Commons and be debated. It seems to me that is the time when we deal with all the questions in which the Hon. Member is interested.


LIMITATION PLACED ON INVESTMENT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: My question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that Bill S-31 limits the investment by the Caisse de Depot in at least 35 large Canadian transportation companies, and potentially in hundreds of other large federally incorporated companies whose activities include transportation? This Bill forces Quebecers who want to invest in Canada either to look outside Canada or to go back to their Province. This is a separatist Bill. Will the Acting Prime Minister explain to us the logic of forcing Quebecers, who want to invest in this country, to turn their backs on Canada?
[ Translation]


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead is so concerned about the lack of investment opportunities for the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec, perhaps he could suggest that the Caisse comply with the regulations of the Toronto Stock Exchange, and it would then be allowed to trade on the TSE.
Oral Questions


PETRO-CANADA HOLDINGS IN WESTCOAST TRANSMISSION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to let the Stock Exchange settle its own affairs. Here in the House, I am concerned about the business of Parliament and about the threat hanging over Quebecers.
If I may, I would like to put a supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister.

If the Government is worried about government agencies operating outside the jurisdiction of the government that sponsors those agencies, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what actions the Government of Canada is going to take about the fact that Petro-Canada holds more than 31 per cent of the shares of Westcoast Transmission, a pipeline company operating exclusively within the Province of British Columbia? Why is there one standard for provincial agencies and a different standard for federal agencies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the point which I made earlier. In Question Period we are having discussion on a Bill which is in the other place and which will come before this House. There will then be plenty of opportunity to debate it. I do not intend to debate, in Question Period, a Bill that will be before the House in the normal way.


Mr. McDermid:: You don't even know what it says.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. In the months of September and October we lost 48,000 full-time jobs in Canada. On Friday last McDonnell-Douglas laid off 500 people. This is part of lay-offs that are occurring in many parts of the country. Precisely when will the Minister put before the House of Commons the program that the Government has been touting around the country; is there such a program simply waiting to be implemented, to create employment for Canadians who are presently unemployed?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that since last Autumn there have been something like 350,000 new jobs created in the Canadian economy. The answer to the second part of his question is that I am looking forward to the presentation of the Speech from the Throne. Within that context of government policies I hope to be able to present the reinforcement of our present programs, and perhaps some new ones which would focus on the question which concerns him.

November 21, 1983
Oral Questions


COMPANIES' RESPONSIBILITIES TO CANADIAN WORKERS
Ian Deans: Notwithstanding the Minister's claim that there have been substantial numbers of new jobs created, the overwhelming majority of those jobs are part-time jobs that do not meet the needs of those people who are providing the only source of income for their families. In addition to the 500 that McDonnell-Douglas announced it laid off, it is subcontracting work which could provide for an additional thousand or more manyears of work to other employers, some in Canada but not all. What action does the Minister propose to take to guarantee that those companies in Canada which are currently enjoying higher profit margins than they were a year or a year and one-half ago, and which still have people unemployed, are undertaking their responsibility to this country and its citizens by giving Canadians an opportunity to go to work?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I do not agree with the hon. gentleman that the largest part of those 350,000 jobs are short-term jobs. A very significant number of them are permanent. Moreover, I do not think it is wise to heap scorn on short-term jobs, particularly for young people and those entering the economy for the first time. That first job, even if it is a short-term job, is extraordinarily important in giving them the work experience which enables them to go on and subsequently have more permanent employment in the labour force.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ian Deans: All across the country we have people who have been laid off. Many of them have reached a point where they are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance. Many of them cannot find employment. Given that one month from now will be Christmas, is it the intention of the Government, since it cannot produce employment for those people, at least to give them an opportunity to have a halfway decent income over this very difficult period by extending unemployment insurance benefits to ensure that those who have run out of benefits will, in fact, receive unemployment insurance benefits up until the time the government programs take effect?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think that the approach that we are taking is the one presented by the Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, speaking on "The Nation's Business" this weekend. I recommend that presentation of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway recognized that there is a strengthening of the economy taking place. We on this side of the House believe that in that strengthening of the economy jobs are being created for Canadians largely as a result of the policies which
have been brought forward by this Government. It is that approach, the creation of jobs in the private sector, which is partially as a result of co-operation with the federal Government, that is leading to the response to the job needs of this country, which we support.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After weeks of meetings and briefings to clarify the Minister's unfortunate statements with respect to the Middle East situation, questions are still unanswered. Two weeks ago, for example, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs asked in this House:
Why has our Department of External Affairs not moved to condemn the presence of the parasite PLO in Lebanon and the Syrian invaders, and demanded the withdrawal of Syria and the PLO?
Would the Minister now answer that question? Why indeed has our Department of External Affairs not moved to condemn the presence of the parasitic PLO in Lebanon and the Syrian invaders, and ask that they withdraw from Lebanon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question contains an implication which I reject totally, namely, that Canada has not taken a stand on all foreign forces in Lebanon. Our view, which we have stated frequently, is that all foreign forces should withdraw unless specifically requested by the Government of Lebanon. That applies to all forces.
We have made it clear about Israeli forces. We have made it equally clear about Syrian forces and the PLO. Let the Hon. Member be under no misapprehension about the over-all view of the Government of Canada with respect to the occupying groups in the sorely afflicted country of Lebanon.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN CAIRO
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind that Israel is Canada's friend and our traditional ally, and if the Minister's last answer is correct, would he indicate why, when he was in Cairo on October 23, he specifically called for the unilateral withdrawal of Israel's troops from Lebanon but made absolutely no mention of the withdrawal of the Soviet-backed Syrian troops from the same country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member should examine the many transcripts of press conferences given in my visit to the Middle East. 1 made it abundantly clear that, in the view of the Government of Canada, Syrian forces should withdraw from Lebanon. If the
November 21, 1983

Hon. Member has any doubt about that policy let me repeat it. It is the view of the Government of Canada that Syrian forces should withdraw. That statement was made on a number of
occasions-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -on my visit to the Middle East. It was certainly made to my interlocutors in the various conversations which I had. Let the Hon. Member not try to create a false issue here.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They are your words.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The matter has been fully dealt with in a number of statements which 1 have made, including those made in the course of the Middle East visit.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SYRIAN POLICIES
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. The Minister will know that the impression which was left from his trip, as a result of his comments about the potential role for peace which Syria had to play, was that in fact Canadian policy had shifted toward a pro-Syrian position. Therefore 1 invite the Minister today to make the record as clear as possible for all Canadians, and particularly for our allies in this case, and simply say that the gravest possible threat posed to peace in the Middle East, to Israel, and to Lebanon, is currently posed by the policies and actions of Syria. 1 think he probably believes that if he represents Canada's policy, and I invite him to make that statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regarded the visit which I made to Syria as an important one which illustrated to me the influence which Syria presently has in the Middle East. That was confirmed, the influence which Syria does have in the Middle East, either constructively or destructively. It can either be a positive force or a destructive force.
In my discussions with the President of Syria, Mr. al-Assad, I pointed out to him the influence which his country has, and I expressed the strong view that he ought to exercise that influence in a constructive way in order to facilitate the peace process in the Middle East. That is the view of the Government of Canada.


REQUEST FOR CONDEMNATION OF SYRIAN ACTIONS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of clarity let me ask the Minister to use his own words and say to Canadians, Israelis and our friends, that what Syria is presently doing is using its influence, its force and its support destructively. Will he make that simple statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the
Oral Questions
Hon. Member must provide me with what particular action conducted by Syria I should condemn. We have condemned the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon. We have urged them to withdraw as quickly as possible. We have urged Syria to participate in respect of the peace process in the Middle East.
We have made all of these suggestions in the course of the Middle East tour, and the Hon. Member should not attempt to draw in side issues that were not part of my discussions in the Middle East. 1 know what the Hon. Member is up to, and 1 do not respect his attitude very much.
I want to tell him that the trip to the Middle East was a success. My visit to Israel was a success, and it was so described in subsequent exchanges by the Prime Minister of Israel who regarded the trip as a confirmation of a longstanding friendship between Canada and Israel.
It was my purpose in going to the Middle East to draw closer Canada and Israel, and to improve bilateral relations between Canada and all countries in the Middle East.


FORESTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for the forest industry. He knows full well the importance of new initiatives for reforestation. Last week he indicated that the Government was spending $80 million in reforestation moneys. Considering that the Government of Canada will give to the oil and gas companies of Canada something in excess of $1.5 billion this year, would he tell the House if he still considers $80 million not to be a pitiful amount of money, as I suggested last week?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether the Hon. Member, in posing the question, is at all interested in finding sources of energy in the North so as to strengthen Canada's independence from foreign imports. When that policy was established under the National Energy Program some years ago, it was natural that the Government would pursue the policy vigorously in order to ensure Canada's self sufficiency.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister did not get the gist of my question. It dealt with forestry and the lack of money for reforestation. Considering that his Assistant Deputy Minister recently quit in disgust at the lack of initiative the Government was taking, would the Minister agree to follow the advice of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who suggested recently that it was time that the Government of Canada set up a Department of Forestry? Would he give some consideration to actually setting up a Ministry of Forestry and, if not, would he at

Oral Questions
least follow the advice from his colleague in Cabinet and set up a Department of Forestry to give it the much deserved credit that Canada's number one industry deserves?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member will agree that the creation of another Department will not help the growth and strengthening of our forest industry. What is needed is a commitment by industry and the Provinces, which are the owners of 90 per cent of Crown land, and by the federal Government, in co-ordinating a national policy. If he believes that the structural change he suggests would enhance the cause of forestry, he would have to make a case for it.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On Thursday, November 17, the President of the Privy Council tabled in the House of Commons, very quietly I might add, a 264-page report dealing with special pay for special public sector people who apparently are not covered generously enough by Treasury Board guidelines.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why there is only one copy of this report in the Library of Parliament, and why there is only one copy down in Sessional Papers, particularly when, the day before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates sits, those copies are not available to Members who are interested in the report for their work on that committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the Hon. Member why there is only one copy in the Library or in the committee branch. The document was tabled in the House of Commons and therefore it is a public document which can be made available in any numbers required. It is the purpose of the Government to make the information available and that is why it was tabled in the House of Commons. I hope the Hon. Member regards the House of Commons as a very public place. All of its documents are available to the public.


CRITERIA GOVERNING NON-CLASSIFIED APPOINTMENTS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, three Members on this side of the House have attempted to get copies of that document and they are not available to Members of the House of Commons who are interested in operating properly on the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
What are the criteria and guidelines for non-classified appointments? Are the Treasury Board statutes and guidelines obsolete? One can understand the need for special remuneration for the president and the chief executive officers of the Bank of Canada, Air Canada, and maybe the CNR-maybe even PetroCan, but why the Chairman of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency? What is so special about the President and the Chairman of the Canada Museum Construction Corporation, the Special Adviser to the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of VIA Rail, who, every time he sells a ticket, has to come back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for $50? Why are these special rates of remuneration spread so widely across the sector?


An Hon. Member:: Because they are Liberals.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Hon. Member has asked why data on these particular classifications or particular employees are included in this report. As I understand it, it was an effort to make information public with respect to the compensation paid under Order in Council appointments. The Hon. Member will have noticed it is not a range of compensation but an effort to show the very top salary and the lowest salary in that group of persons appointed by the Governor in Council. That was an effort required under the law passed in connection with the six and five program.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. There are 1.4 million unemployed Canadians seeking work. The Government has refused funding for the Farm Credit Corporation, restricting the capacity of our farmers; and the Acting Prime Minister knows that many students are seeking employment. In the context of the lack of availability of funds, why has his Government suddenly, despite all urging toward restraint, unveiled this elitist book, "Constitution 1982", costing over one-quarter of a million dollars? Would the Acting Prime Minister explain why his Government has made it a priority to publish this expensive book, breaking its own commitment to restraint at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Hon. Member would raise questions about that particular publication on the Constitution.


Mr. Crosbie:: It is a sleazy piece of work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was published to pay particular attention to an historic landmark in the history of our country. I am very surprised that the Hon. Member would take that attitude.
I have seen the book which the Hon. Member has in his hand.
November 21, 1983

I think it is a splendid effort on the part of the Secretary of State, and I think the money was well spent in the interests of Canadian patriotism.


COST TO TREASURY
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. In his introduction, the Secretary of State calls this book an exercise in "fostering among Canadians an awareness and understanding of their history and symbols". In the light of the Acting Prime Minister's answer, how many Canadians do he and his Government think are somehow going to get their minds into the Constitution at $20 or $30 a crack? What will be the loss to the federal treasury? Are we going to go on and on with further printings in order to follow through what the Secretary of State says is the purpose of this book?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member should take a walk into a book store and find out what is paid today for books of much less merit than the particular one he has in his hand.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is propaganda.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Last night countless millions of people on this continent saw the all too graphic television movie entitled "The Day After", which outlined the horror a possible nuclear war would bring to this planet. Since an important part of the Prime Minister's peace initiative is a call for expanding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, why is Canada helping to develop a deadly new nuclear weapon, namely, the Cruise missile? Why not put our money where our mouth is, and ban testing the Cruise missile here in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member began his question by talking about the film which was shown on television last night and which obviously had a dramatic impact in indicating to us the consequences of a nuclear war.


John Carnell Crosbie: You watched King Lear, I suppose, to bone up on Trudeau.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are all too aware of what the consequences would be, and that is why we have advocated and stated so frequently that we do not believe any nuclear war can be won. That is why we are part of an alliance which is built upon a philosophy of deterrence; in other words, to prevent the
Oral Questions
possibility of a nuclear war in a number of ways, one of which is the reduction of arms and the bringing about of a better political atmosphere in which that arms reduction could take place. That is why currently the Prime Minister is devoting so much time to this particular effort in realization of the consequences of a nuclear war and the consequences of a continued buildup in hostilities.


REQUEST FOR TOTAL BAN ON NUCLEAR ARMS TESTING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question.
[ Translation]
But I would like to ask a supplementary, if 1 may, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to go along with any peace initiative, but I wonder why the Prime Minister has not included in his present plan a total and immediate ban on nuclear testing and a nuclear freeze, and finally, why he did not include, as well, a proposal for nuclear-free zones? Why has he failed to include important issues like the three I just mentioned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that underlying the Prime Minister's efforts is the belief that there are a large number of arms proposals now in play. There have been proposals made at the Geneva negotiations by the United States, and counter proposals by the Soviet Union. Some of these proposals merit attention.
One asks why is it that no progress has been made? It is not because there are not good arms proposals lying around; it is because the political atmosphere is so bad that it is impossible to move ahead with constructive conclusions. The Hon. Member may have very good ideas on arms control. I do not think that is the real block to present efforts to bring about solutions in the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the interests of recognizing as many Hon. Members as possible, the Chair proposes to recognize Members for single questions only at this point. The Hon. Member for Victoria.


Mr. McKinnon:: How did I get lucky enough to come in at this stage?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, who has the country quite confused about the CF-18. He said on November 18, 1983:

November 21, 1983
Oral Questions
-the needed engineering changes will be incorporated within the aircraft which are now entering the production line. There is, as I indicated to the Hon. Member, a fix being put in which will remedy the problem which he has identified.
Canadian Press in an article on November 19, 1983, wrote:
The U.S. Navy has ruled out replacement of the engine mounts as too expensive and no production design changes are planned-
Could the Hon. Minister assure the House that all of our F-18s-and we have some 20-will have their engine mounts replaced? Could he tell us what kind of a contract we have wherein the supplier might not be held responsible for the defective parts? Does it have anything to do with the short term of the warranty, which is 180 days-which is what you would expect on a $7 wrist watch?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the company has accepted the responsibility of performing the changes that are required, as was pointed out in my initial reply. The requirements are being looked at now in terms of incorporating the changes within aircraft No. 53 that is going onto the production line. That is the information with which 1 have been provided.
In terms of the changes contemplated for the aircraft that have already left the production line and have been delivered, I am advised the repairs are being performed now. In terms of exactly how the repairs will be completed, that is something which has not been identified to the satisfaction of my Department. We are still pursuing, with a great deal of interest, the solution being implemented.

* (1450)


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. A recent study by a committee of professional engineers in British Columbia has identified that there are over 1,400 professional engineers unemployed in that Province, that 400 graduating engineers next spring have no job offers to which to look forward, and that about 2,500 registered and unregistered professional engineers will be unemployed within coming months.
My question is important because it appears that the lead time between the inception of projects and the spin-off work to contract and other trades personnel is at least a year and a half. What specific initiatives can the Minister offer, other than concrete and asphalt projects, like repaving parking lots in airports, such as the one in my constituency? What type of long-term hope can he offer to professional engineers in Canada, for example, in the area of technology and trades centres which may acquaint young professional engineers with
the new opportunities that might present themselves in the years ahead?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious of the necessity of employing as many of these professionals as possible. In fact, many specific initiatives have been undertaken. The Hon. Member has asked for specific initiatives. He said that he did not want to hear about the paving of runways and highways, but I suggest that these in themselves are significant.
Apart from that, for example in British Columbia, as he knows, under the Special Recovery Capital Projects there is the $15 million facility for pulp and paper research in Vancouver. That is a major area of employment, of which I am sure he will be very much in support. We also have, of course, a number of other significant projects, such as the Block 15 Development in Vancouver, which in itself is another $41 million project. In addition to that, there is Canada Place and the tremendous amount of work which will be undertaken with respect to Expo 86, largely as a result of federal Government initiatives. This will clearly provide very substantial employment for engineers. Of course now, with the passage of the Crow Bill and western transportation initiatives, there will be a whole series of spin-offs, not to mention-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry, the Hon. Member asked for specific-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps, if further detail is sought, a question could be put on the Order Paper.
V *	%


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The opinion expressed very strongly by high-ranking officials in the United States-and it is strongly rumoured that the two who expressed the opinion were Cabinet officers who requested anonymity-was that Canada's contribution to NATO is shameful. As this is precisely what Canadian delegates to NATO meetings have been hearing from their American and European counterparts for the past 15 years, does the Government not believe that it is long overdue to increase our NATO force to the full 10,000 fully-equipped men which it pledged when NATO was formed, and maintained until 1968 when the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister of our country and cut the force in half and, by so doing, brought shame and great embarrassment to our country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to United States Cabinet officers.
November 21, 1983

Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS
All I can tell him is that 1 have had quite a number of discussions with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Shultz, in the course of the past year, and at no point has he ever registered with me the view which the Hon. Member has attributed to the United States Cabinet officers.
I have pointed out to Mr. Shultz, on at least one occasion, and maybe more than one occasion, that Canada is committed to 3 per cent real growth in its defence expenditures. We intend to carry that out. We have undertaken modernization of the forces, and the annual nominal increase in our defence expenditures is quite substantial. If the Hon. Member would look at the rate of nominal growth in defence in comparison with other sectors of government expenditures, he would conclude that the amount spent on defence is quite impressive. I have no reason to accept the words of anonymous Cabinet officers as against the conclusions I draw from direct conversations with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Shultz.


George Harris Hees: If I were allowed a supplementary question, I would murder him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Minister knows, Mexico is developing a 50-mile wide industrial zone immediately south of the United States, bordering on the United States, and is promoting the moving in of both American and Canadian manufacturing industries where the labour rate cost burden is on average 92 cents per hour. I would like to know what our Government, through the Minister's Department, is prepared to do to stem the flow of Canadian manufacturing industries, not just United States branch plants in Canada but Canadian industries, into that industrial zone where labour rates are about 90 cents or 92 cents per hour.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that what Mexico is doing with respect to trying to encourage industry around the world to develop, by using its cheaper labour rates, is not something which just happened in the last couple of days. That is one of the reasons why we proposed-and it was adopted by all Parties in the House-the IRDP program to enable the Government to be proactive in encouraging small and medium-sized as well as large companies across the country to undertake investment programs to create more industrial jobs. We have the program. Now the question is: do we have the projects from the private sector right across Canada?


REQUEST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF SALARIES PAID SENIOR EXECUTIVES
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the acting Prime Minister took some pride in disclosing the list which was published giving upper and lower salary limits for senior quasi-public servants of Crown corporations. I wonder if he would like to take a further step and indicate why it is that the Government cannot indeed publish the salaries paid to chief executive officers, some of which extend to the limit of $228,000 per year, and in that way make full disclosure not only to the House but to the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the information which was tabled was in compliance with the law passed by the Parliament of Canada. Obviously with respect to public servants, we have made public the range of salary. In this particular case, because it is impossible to find anything equivalent to a range, we have shown the maximum salary and the lowest salary. One should not draw the inference that every person in that category is eligible to receive the maximum salary. The Hon. Member may find a good deal of value by referring to a survey which was published this year in the Financial Times, showing the salaries of top executives in the private sector which, in many cases, were much more than salaries paid in the public sector for those who, in some cases, were operating much larger and more expensive public corporations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, my question has been preempted by the early departure of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries of Oceans my question is directed to his parliamentary assistant, who is not yet dry behind the ears. The Government has promised a resource-short plant program to supply fish to inshore plants which do not have offshore vessels, so that they can operate longer in the year. In particular, this was a promise made to the plant at Fermeuse in my district, and to the people there, some three or four months ago. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me when that program will commence? When will fish start to be landed at Fermeuse or other inshore plants? Is the Minister prepared to permit foreign trawlers to be used to catch this fish if no satisfactory arrangements as to payment can be made with Canadian trawlers?

November 21, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Berger


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that this question is very much on the mind of the Minister, his Department, and his advisers. We are dealing with it even today. We would like to give him an answer as quickly as possible. Obviously I cannot do it in this House on short notice today. However, 1 want to say to the Hon. Member, in all sincerity, that it is much better to be wet behind the ears and trying sincerely, than to have dry sawdust for 15 years in a row between the ears, as one sits in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
point as to whether certain remarks were parliamentary or unparliamentary. The Chair has ruled that they are not unparliamentary, that they are acceptable within this House. Surely that disposes of the matter.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in questions of this nature, when the remarks are attributed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), that we on this side might be heard before the Chair comes to a ruling. In the meantime, 1 of course agree wholeheartedly with the ruling of the Chair. It is sometimes very difficult for us on this side to distinguish the monkeys from the donkeys over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite Hon. Members to reflect on whether they are contributing to the dignity of this place.
[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention some comments made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. 1 had hoped we would be here to listen to my comments. Unfortunately, he has already left the House. I am referring to some less than praiseworthy comments he made during oral question period. I find those comments rather surprising, especially since the Hon. Leader of the Opposition had said he hoped debate in the House would be more civilized.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to Citation 359(7) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says, and I quote:
(7) A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it.
I can assure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that I am quite capable of examining a Bill, of determining its substance and of making a considered decision. 1 merely want to ask him to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is disposed to say at this time-and the Chair was listening attentively to the remarks which were made-that with all due respect to the Hon. Member, while the remarks were not complimentary, they were not unparliamentary.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 was hoping that you would hear a spokesman from this side before making a ruling. I didn't hear-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) realizes the Hon. Member raised the


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, November 18, 1983 meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by thousands of people in the Province of Ontario. Whereas they believe that abortion clinics are the first step toward an even more relaxed abortion law and abortion on demand and are convinced that human problems must be solved by loving and caring, not by killing more than 65,000 unborn Canadians each year, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to guarantee the right to life of all Canadians as yet unborn, while at the same time promoting in every way possible those groups which seek to provide life-saving alternatives to abortion. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions. May I dispense with the reading of the motions?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party would prefer that you follow proper procedure at this time.
Motions stand.
November 21, 1983


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5,037 and 5,315.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Employment and Immigration sponsor a program at the University of Winnipeg and at the University of Manitoba to provide a special initiative for employment stimulus which would involve part-time work for students attending these universities and, if so (a) within what time frame did the program operate (b) is the program still in existence (c) what amount was expended in support of the program at each University (d) is it intended to expand the program to include other universities in Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: In the fall of 1982, the Department of Employment and Immigration signed one agreement with the student union of the University of Manitoba and one agreement with the student union of the University of Winnipeg to provide parttime study related employment for students attending those universities, (a) The agreements initially covered the period from November, 1982 to August, 1983. (b) The agreements have now been extended to cover the period from November, 1983 to August, 1984.
(c)	University of Manitoba November, 1982 to August, 1983-$375,000 November, 1983 to August, 1984-$500,000
University of Winnipeg November, 1982 to August, 1983- $80,000 November, 1983 to August, 1984-$100,000
(d)	There are no proposals for other universities under consideration at this time.


Mr. Young: Did the Prime Minister make a representation to the Prime Minister of Great Britain that the Governments of Canada and Great Britain enter into a reciprocal Social Security Agreement and, if so, did the Prime Minister of Great Britain respond that representation and what was the nature of that response?


John Leslie Evans: Yes, the Prime Minister did raise the subject with Prime Minister Thatcher and the question of U.K. pensioners in Canada and the possibility of a reciprocal Social Security Agreement was discussed. Prime Minister Thatcher noted that discussions were under way among officials.


John Leslie Evans: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Oberle:
That this House regards the Government's failure to take action to encourage the development of Canada's resource industries and ensure their competitiveness in world markets as a betrayal of all Canadians whose standard of living depends upon the resource sector of Canada's economy and calls upon the Government to bring an end to the nationalization of Canadian resource industries which has discouraged investment in Canada; introduce tax incentives to restore competitive advantage and stimulate resource production and further processing in Canada; initiate a programme of incentives for research and development; and incentives for marketing activities of Canadian industries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had just completed his speech when the House adjourned at one o'clock. The floor is open.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the motion put before the House today by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). I must say that having read the motion I am amazed that such a motion has been put by the Official Opposition in view of the many actions which have been taken by the federal Government, not only this year through the Special Recovery Capital Projects which were announced in May of this year, but as well the many other activities which have been announced during the past few years.
I do not have to look at the national scene to identify many of the initiatives designed to aid and assist the resource industry taken by the federal Government because my own constituency is one which is very heavily dependent upon resource industries. These include the forest products industry, the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry, the agricultural products industry and the steel industry.
As I look back over the past three or four years, I see a number of initiatives which have not only made these resource-producing industries more acceptable in terms of environmental problems but as well have helped them to be able to meet the competition abroad in the years to come. In the pulp and paper industry in the Town of Espanola, which is in my own constituency, we have seen during the past two or three years a modernization program costing some $250 million undertaken by the E.B. Eddy Forest Products company. Its rehabilitation of an old plant that was not operating efficiently has almost

November 21, 1983
Supply
been completed in the last few months. That undertaking required that a massive capital expenditure be made by the company but it was stimulated and assisted by an incentive program of the federal and provincial Governments.
This modernization will result in a much more efficient plant that will be turning out some 30 per cent to 40 per cent more pulp and paper a year. At the same time portions of wood fibre produced by our forests that are more suitable for use as lumber and other wood products are being used effectively in that way. We can see that a relatively modest stimulation grant of $7.5 million which was made by the federal Government a few years ago has resulted in a massive capital expenditure of over $200 million and will give an old mill that once produced some 600 tonnes of pulp and paper per day the capacity to turn out something like 1,000 tonnes of pulp and paper per day.
I went through that plant three or four months ago, Mr. Speaker, and 1 was impressed when 1 saw that in one pulp and paper facility which had cost some $20 million, the total work force in that mill was only some four people per shift. We often speak about robotics and modernization. That industry has really modernized to meet the competition abroad. I believe it has done so despite the difficult recession which began in the latter part of 1981 and continued into 1982. The plant was still able to continue to operate, and of course it will be that much more efficient and that much more beneficial in the years to come when the economics of the industry will improve and the demand for products will increase.
In the years to come, the size of that sawmill operation will be increased to an ultimate capacity of something like 130 million board feet of lumber a year. Historically, that is a massive kind of operation. In the past there existed in the Blind River area a very large white pine industry operated by McFadden Lumber. In its best years back in the 1930s and 1940s, that company produced only something like 30 million board feet per year. I understand that when this mill is completed, its capacity will approach 130 million board feet of lumber per year. We can now catch a glimpse of the magnitude of its future operations.
In the next few months, however, I believe it is urgent that the federal Government and the provincial Government of Ontario reach a consensus on a new forest renewal agreement. I understand that negotiations in that regard are now taking place and that the federal Government and the Province of Ontario are looking at a five-year agreement under which they will spend some $250 million to $300 million. Some of that money will be spent building roads into resource areas in the forest, but a great deal of it will be spent on forest renewal. I think it is impossible to underestimate the importance of forest renewal.
Some would argue that the actual care, management, licensing and so on of forest resources is a provincial Government responsibility. Constitutionally there may be some validity to that argument. However, the entire industry is too important to wait for the Provinces to act. I believe it is clear that the federal Government should renew that agreement, which runs
out next March, and put in place a new agreement for the forestry resources which will have a great deal of emphasis on forest renewal. As well, there is need for a research component to an agreement between the federal Government and the Province. However, the agreement must stress forest renewal to encourage replanting, silviculture and intensive reforesting.
I was pleased to note that in the announcement made after the budget came out last spring regarding the Special Recovery Capital Projects, a number of research station projects were approved. In the federal forestry domain alone some $13 million has been allocated for the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie which is in the riding of Algoma. That money has been allocated to increase extensively the size of that facility. As well, the budgets of other forest research stations in western Canada, Quebec and the Maritimes have been augmented. It is to the credit of the federal Government that it has made such a massive commitment. Without the necessary research we will not be able to meet the demands that are being put on the industry.
While mentioning the Special Recovery Capital Projects, I would also like to compliment the Government on the commitment made in the budget for funding under the Special Recovery Capital Projects for the water bomber fleet. That fleet will make a substantial contribution not only to Ontario but to many of the other Provinces as well by providing a mobile airborne firefighting service to assist the industry in the year ahead.
I would like to mention that energy, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining are all key sectors in Canada's economic development, sectors which the federal Government has given particular interest to over the past few years. The technological revolution will have a profound effect upon the future development of our resource industries and it is paramount that we take advantage of the opportunities which will be presented to us in these important areas.
One of the chief characteristics of research and development in the resource sector of Canada is the major contribution which the federal Government makes in undertaking the research for this industry. Because of the structure of the resource industry, the relatively small and scattered units of production, the federal Government has traditionally undertaken the role of the research arm for the industry. In agriculture, for example, the Department of Agriculture has had a major research program in place to support the industry ever since Confederation.
In 1983-84, the federal Government will be spending over $3.2 billion on science and technology in Canada. This is an increase of more than 10 per cent over the expenditures of $2.9 billion in 1982-83, and in a time of the six and five restraint program that shows the kind of commitment which the federal Government is placing on science and technological research. Much of this will be in support of the resource sectors such as forestry, mining and agriculture.
November 21, 1983

Some expenditures of the federal Government for science and technology in 1983-84 in the resource industries are: the energy sector, $385 million; agricultural research, $288.2 million; oceans and fisheries, $94.9 million; and natural resources, $214.2 million. Most of these expenditures are mission-oriented research expenditures within the Departments themselves. The Department of Agriculture, for example, will be spending $211 million on intramural research and development in 198384. Fisheries and Oceans will be spending $158 million. Energy, Mines and Resources will be spending $181 million, and the Canadian Forestry Service will be spending $62 million. These latter expenditures do not take into account the incentives which the federal Government provides to universities and industry to encourage them to support science and technology in the resource sectors. Nor do they take into account the approximately $200 million which the federal Government provides through tax incentives to encourage industry to invest in research and development.
Aside from these expenditures which are committed in the Main Estimates for 1983-84, further support to R and D in the resource sector has been provided under the Special Recovery Capital Projects program. This program, highlighted in the technology policy which was announced in the Flouse of Commons on May 3, has allocated $337 million to the accelerated construction or expansion of research and training facilities. These projects are expected to expand substantially research capabilities to serve the forestry, fisheries, agri-food, manufacturing and mining industries. Another $15 million has been allocated to the construction of a fluid-bed minerals research centre in Chatham, New Brunswick. This project is expected to make a major contribution to Canadian mining technology.
Forestry research has received a major boost from this program. For instance, $22 million has been provided for a Maritime forest research centre in Fredericton, New Brunswick; $13 million, as I mentioned previously, has been provided to augment the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie, and $14 million has been provided to increase the forest research facilities at the Pacific Forest Research Centre in Victoria, British Columbia.
As part of the joint industry-Government plan to spur technological development and innovation to enhance our forests' potential, the program has provided $2 million to expand the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada's facilities at Pointe Claire, Quebec, and $15 million to construct new facilities in Vancouver, British Columbia. In the fisheries sector, $40 million is being provided to construct facilities for oceanographic and other fisheries related research at the Fisheries Research Centre in Mont Joli, Quebec.
In agriculture, $30 million is being provided to fund the construction of facilities for food research at the integrated research centre in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. The results achieved at this research centre will support the growth and diversification of the food industry throughout the country. Also, $6 million is being provided to expand the NRC's prairie regional laboratory to house the western centre of the national biotech-
Supply
nology program. Research undertaken here will be primarily focused on the application of biotechnology to the agricultural industry. As well, $19 million will be provided as a contribution towards construction of the Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. This is a total of $186 million in support of research facilities to improve research and development in the resource sectors. This does not indicate that the resource industries are being ignored by the Government of Canada; rather, it is a strong indication of the importance the federal Government is placing on supporting our resource development industries.
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that technology development is only high-tech or microelectronics. One of the objectives of the technology policy is to dispel this myth and to emphasize the importance of technology to all sectors of our economy. The very first objective of the policy is to strengthen the Canadian economy through the development of new technologies for producing goods and services and the widespread adoption of new and existing technologies. Canada has not always had a good record on technology diffusion within our industries. A recent study by the Economic Council suggests that we lag considerably behind other countries in the adoption of new technologies, particularly in the non-central regions of Canada. Not only is R and D critical to keeping our resource industries competitive, but diffusion of the new and available technologies is particularly important to our continuing ability successfully to make the most of our rich resource base.
Because research in the resource sector is so heavily dependent on research undertaken in the federal laboratories, the federal Government is particularly concerned that the research in these labs is both effective and relevant to the industry it serves. With respect to the research and technology development performed or funded by the Government itself, the objectives of the technology policy are: to ensure that all federal programs and policies related to technology development contribute as effectively as possible to the over-all federal objectives for technology and economic development; to ensure that the research undertaken in federal laboratories in support of technology development is relevant to industrial requirements and compatible with the stated economic objectives; and to ensure that Canada develops and maintains a national competence in the research and development necessary for technological development.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) has recently appointed a task force to review and recommend improvements to federal policies and programs related to technology development. The task force, which will report directly to the Minister, will review the Government's intramural science and technology activities and make recommendations on whether Government research is relevant to industry's needs. It will also study the Government's industry support programs, policies currently in place to enhance our R and D in the business sector, and possible improvements to university-industry co-operation with regard to R and D. The task force, comprised of representatives from industry, univer-

November 21, 1983
Supply
sity and labour, was appointed in early November and has been asked to report within the next six months.
Public awareness of science and technology is also a critical factor in the abilities of our industries, our universities, our labour force and, in fact, our citizens to recognize the opportunities which the new technologies can offer and to avoid the pitfalls which technological change may place before us. This is as important in the resource sector as it is in any other.
As a first step in encouraging awareness of the effects of technological change and to encourage each sector to manage instead of just reacting to technological change, the federal Government sponsored the Canada Tomorrow Conference. This conference drew representatives from each sector in Canada, including agriculture and the forest and mining industries. The conference opened up lines of communication which had previously been unknown or had lately grown lax from disuse. This communication is vital if Canada is to apply successfully its technological potential to its future economic development. It is a first step but one which will be used to build future ties and develop further policies, not only by the federal Government but by the participants from those various industries such as agriculture, high technology, and resource industries including mining and forestry.
1 want to conclude by saying that Canada is a country rich in resources. We cannot ignore the advantages we have in this area. The federal Government has long invested in the future of our resource base by investing in research for our resource industries. Almost 40 per cent of the Government's R and D intramural expenditures are spent on our natural resources, and we will continue to provide this kind of support.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) confesses that he is perplexed as to why we put forward this motion. He says he cannot understand it, then by rote he rhymes off item after item of Government money going into NEED programs and the like. This is the first opportunity in some time that I have had to speak of my own riding of Yukon, some 237,000 square miles, if I am still permitted to use that term in this place. That part of Canada this Government has virtually closed down. No amount of NEED programs, no amount of paper jobs and no number of speeches along the lines of the one of which the Hon. Member for Algoma has just divested himself, will cure that ugly fact.
The most recent project which provided some glimmer of hope for the hundreds of unemployed in Yukon was turned down in early November by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). I speak of the north slope development where there exists a substantial potential for the development of oil and gas, but which requires construction of a port on the north slope of Yukon. I think it is an
apt way to start my contribution to the debate by reading this telegram sent by the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce in Yukon to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Dear Mr. Trudeau:
The following resolution was passed at the monthly membership meeting of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce on November 8th:
"That the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce request that Mr. John Munro be asked to resign and further that a new Department of Northern Development completely separate from Indian Affairs be formed."
The Chamber passed this resolution due to Mr. Munro's announcement on November 7th prohibiting development on Yukon's north coast.
The following points are relevant:
1.	The Minister is charged with responsibility for northern development, as well as Indian affairs. The Yukon economy is severely depressed, due to the shutdown of the mining and transportation industries. New development is required to provide jobs for the many native and non native people who have become unemployed over the past two years. For the Minister to turn down potential new jobs and business opportunities under such circumstances is a renunciation of his responsibilities for northern development.
2.	The decision is also a powerful psychological blow to Yukon, as the proposed north coast developments offered a glimmer of economic hope to the Territory. Members of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce have asked themselves in the past whether the federal Government is interested in the existence of a viable private business sector in the north. We see development proposals going through extensive hearings and reviews which give the impression that development, jobs and taxes are not welcome in the north. Most recently, we see federal Government Departments, leaded by the Northern Affairs Department, proposing new regulations for the placer mining industry in Yukon when even the Government's own studies show that the regulations will put 16 per cent of the present operators out of business. If the Government persists in these actions and adds to the rolls of the unemployed, while refusing to let new projects proceed, we cannot expect to solve the unemployment problem in the Territory or expect private business to survive. Under such circumstances we find it very hard to be optimistic and we await with trepidation the Minister's decision regarding implementation of the placer mining regulations.
3.	The Minister has responsibility for the way in which development proposals are handled. Each proposal in Yukon is dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Each has to meet rules, regulations and concerns that are expressed by Department employees at the time of application and which may differ from application to application. Nobody is sure of the ground rules or of the possibilities of success when they make an application. We understand that both applicants in the current issue were encouraged by Department of Northern Affairs staff to proceed with their applications and that both had met the various concerns identified by Departmental staff.
I will be reading into the record a departmental document to show the truth of that assertion. It continues:
The refusal of their proposals after a protracted period of discussion lasting many months, and on the basis of issues that had not been identified before, leads to waste of investment money and effort on behalf of the applicants. It also discourages future development proposals, as proponents will not know what the ground rules are, will have no faith in the bureaucrats knowing what the issues are and will face inflated and additional costs with no assurance that they will see any return. In conclusion, I repeat again that Yukon is suffering severe economic problems. Unemployed residents must move south to find work and our young people graduating from school must do the same. Initially this situation was caused by the international economic slowdown. However, the uncertainty in the placer mining industry has been caused by the federal Government and in the north coast case we cannot understand how a Minister of your Government can turn away a potential solution to the economic problems of Yukon by disallowing new industrial expansion in the Yukon by Canadian companies.
We urge you to obtain Mr. Munro's resignation and to establish a new department responsible solely for northern development headed by a new Minister who is aware of the need for northern development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 21, 1983


Erik Nielsen: It is signed "Sincerely, P. G. Dixon, President, Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce." I have a better solution than that, Mr. Speaker. That is a modest request by the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of Yukoners. A far better solution would be to get rid of the whole damn mess on the Treasury benches, have them move aside so that we can move with some energetic and visionary policies with respect to developing this country. What does the King Point Quarry proposal mean? What would it have meant to Yukoners, to Canadians not just in Yukon, because certainly it has its national aspects in the potential oil and gas fields off the north slope of Yukon? It would have created a harbour facility, an air strip, quarry facilities and a haul road. A camp would have accommodated 300 people, 400 during the construction stages. Over a quarry life of 20 to 25 years it would have meant an average employment of 300 people, most of whom would have been Yukoners. The vast majority of those would be northerners. It would have meant spin-offs of $3.5 million a year in goods and services required at one operation. This is the proposal that the Minister has rejected. Why has he rejected it? He has rejected it on the basis that it might jeopardize the final conclusion of native land claims. What a cop-out, Mr. Speaker. We have had the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon, and the Council for Yukon Indians studying and negotiating since 1973. Their target, which is still realistic today, was for announcing the final agreement in principle by the end of this month. Yet on November 7 the Minister gives us the excuse of native land claims for not proceeding with this project.
Another vital factor here is that there was a window within which this project had to be approved or lost, a window which was imposed as a result of the need for the project to go ahead on time. Otherwise the proponents would have to look elsewhere for the method and materials to construct the off-island sites for exploration for oil and gas. That window is now gone. I dare say that if the Minister changes his mind, which I hope he still might do, it could very possibly be that the proponent will still go ahead with the project.
Let me quote from the Department's own document, a presentation to the north slope project review group, that is a group that was set up by the Minister himself, by the northern affairs program department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is the Department's own document that was presented about five weeks before the Minister made his decision. I am quoting as follows from the third heading, "North Slope Package":
At the time the Hon. John Munro announced the creation of the Project Review Group, he indicated that he hoped to be able to announce in the Fall a "package" for the North Slope, consisting of land claim settlements, a caribou management board, a National Park, a land use planning mechanism, and limited industrial development. While each of these are being carried forward in another forum, DIAND would like to make you aware of the progress toward each major element of the package in order to assist you in your deliberations.
Here follows the Departments' own assessment, obviously designed to encourage the project review group to bring down
Supply
a favourable decision to proceed with north slope development. Under "Land Use Planning" the Department says:
As you are aware, extensive consultation and discussions with the territorial governments and the native organizations (CYI in Yukon, and the Dene, Metis, COPE and TEN in N.W.T.) have resulted in agreement on the implementation of land use planning in Yukon-
Under "Land Claims" the Department says:
It is hoped that negotiations on the sub-agreements which will constitute the over-all agreement in principle, will be completed in October, subject to subsequent ratification.
Since this document was prepared, the sub-agreement collection has been made public and they are completed with one or two minor exceptions, none of which have any direct bearing on the reconsideration of the Minister's decision on the north slope.
Paragraph 4, "Some DIAND Objectives for the North Slope of the Yukon", reads:
Finally, we would like to put several major elements of the Department's thinking with respect to the North Slope on the record to assist the Group.
Two paragraphs on the following page are pertinent:
While the Department is just started on the intensive review of the Kiewit proposal, we have had the Gulf proposal for over a year now. In looking at both, we have wanted to determine if both were good projects, were they serious, viable, needed projects. We have concluded that the Gulf request for a marine support base is such a project, and our scrutiny to date of the Kiewit proposal suggests that it too meets these tests.
We have wanted to determine if negative environmental impacts can be managed, or mitigated, and if what one could call the down side of the project can be controlled. In the case of the Gulf application, we are confident that these tests can be met, and while the review of the Kiewit proposal is very much in progress, nothing seen to date suggests an unmanageable problem.
And on the next page:
These projects especially entail a high degree of industrial and employment benefit for the people of the Yukon.
If we look to the future, a site on the Yukon North Slope has a significant set of advantages, not the least of which is enhancing the economic future of the Yukon, a goal shared with the Government of the Yukon. If tied in with a quarry, it opens the chance for Canadians to earn potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in the foreign trade market, and to have available if needed a technique for building hydrocarbon production facilities with a very high Canadian content. If properly located, such a port opens the door to valuable business opportunities for all Canadians and especially Northerners, for marine support activities aimed at the American Beaufort. And, if properly sited, it will of course have a substantial similar role if and when hydrocarbon development takes place in the Canadian Beaufort.
The Member for Algoma went through a lengthy list of moneys that were being expended on these "make aid" programs financed by billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to make work for unemployed people whom they themselves have put out of work. Now the private sector and private industry come along wanting to make an investment in Canada's future. What does this Government say to it? It says, "We do not want your dollars. We do not want your jobs."
The chances are that the technology that will be required to be used now in order to proceed with that port facility is not available in this country and those jobs and dollars will be exported to Japan or to some other offshore location. I find it totally incomprehensible that the Government goes to such lengths to turn a cold shoulder to the private sector in this country which wants to invest in its own future and wants to
29036

November 21, 1983
Supply
create jobs. The Government says, "No, because we do not want to prejudice native claims that are now on the verge of completion." 1 think 1 can safely stand here and say, with one or two i's and t's to be dotted and crossed, that a total agreement in principle will be out by the end of this month.
It is a sham for the Minister to say that the project is not proceeding because of native claims. I find it difficult to try to figure out why, unless it is because he wants to use the time for announcing the Yukon agreement in principle and the time for announcing the COPE agreement in principle to tie in somehow with his own personal ambitions for what he expects to be a leadership convention of the Liberal Party. That is the only possible reason I can think of why he would reject this project. 1 understand negotiations are underway through which the CY1 might be provided with a loan of $80 million by the Canadian Government so that it can take an equity position in the Kiewit project, in the King Point project. If that loan is made, over a period of 20 to 25 years the Government will certainly recover its $80 million loan to the native organizations there. At the same time the native organizations will ensure that their own people are employed in the project.
1 would find it quite acceptable if the Government wanted to follow that kind of course. It would be a sound investment. However, if that is the case, and I understand the case is that these negotiations are ongoing, I urge the Government to make that kind of loan so as to ensure that the project goes ahead because it will certainly see its money returned in very short order.
1 wanted to say something about northern Canada Power Commission and how tragic that National Energy Board report is and how tragic it is that the Government is not proceeding with the unanimous Penner report in that regard. I wanted to say something about the suffocation that is occurring with respect to the placer mining industry in the Yukon, which is virtually being shut down by the Government's action. 1 wanted to say something about the taxation of northern benefits, which we have enjoyed in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and indeed throughout northern Canada for so many years now. Again, the Government is acting in a way that shows a total and complete insensitivity to the problems of northern Canada and particularly to my part of the country.
These and other measures surely have to be reviewed and they must be reviewed by a Minister who is sensitive to northern concerns and the concerns of northern people. They must be reviewed in a fashion which totally separates the Minister from his two hats, one where he is obliged to care for the general welfare of our Canadian native population and the other where he has an obligation to ensure reasonable development in northern areas.
I might say that the Yukon Government is totally supportive of the Keiwit proposal and if we had the decision to make, I can tell you that a Conservative Government would be totally supportive of this kind of development. It is totally incomprehensible why the Minister and his Government would refuse
the only succour that is on the horizon for a part of Canada that has been virtually frozen by the policies of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments and answers. Debate.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to apologize for the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). The Minister was notified only fifteen minutes before three o'clock that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would be speaking to the motion before the House today.
There are two important aspects to this debate. It is clear that Canada's North must be developed, but always within the context of native rights. I think that is essential, and the Member for Yukon is well aware of this. As the Member for Manicouagan, I realize the implications, since the Fort Chimo area is part of my riding, and we are very aware of the fact that, in both cases, Canada's North and the issue of native land claims cannot be seen separately from one another.
That being said, I would first like to point out to the Member for Yukon that asking for the resignation of the Minister of Indian affairs and Northern Development is not the way to settle the issue. I was in Fort Chimo only ten days ago, and their position was the exact opposite. They wanted the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to stay for a long time, and people were saying that he was one of the few Ministers who had done as much for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I feel that the report tabled by a House Committee not long ago proves beyond a doubt that the present Minister is very sensitive to native rights and land claims and also to the need for development of the North.
Mr. Speaker, to answer the Member for Yukon, I would like to point out that the present Minister has certainly not dismissed the Keiwit proposal. The minister wanted to examine other suggestions as well, because, as the Member for Yukon pointed out earlier, all kinds of studies have been made concerning the Yukon North Slope project.
Very shortly, in a matter of weeks, a definitive report will be submitted to the Minister on the issue of native land claims. At that point, the Minister intends to consider several other proposals aimed at creating maximum employment and especially at bringing about a balanced development process in the Yukon area, not only for industry but for the native peoples as well. I imagine both sides of the House will agree that development of the North must be achieved in co-operation with the first inhabitants of this area as well as with the various companies involved.
Where the Member for Yukon commented that through nationalization, the Canadian Government was preventing the
November 21, 1983

development of the private sector in Canada's North, I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member that in my riding, the industrial sector includes both a number of private enterprises and Government-owned corporations. As far as iron ore is concerned, I don't think the federal Government, the present Government, brought about the present situation which, as far as I can see, is a matter of economics.
In Canada's North, we are often faced with the same situation. There is oil, which is in demand today, but there are also minerals, Mr. Speaker, which are there for us to mine and market. However, my colleagues on this side of the House as well as those opposite will realize that it would be entirely premature at this stage to issue licences to various companies or to approve various industrial proposals at a time when we are about to sign agreements on native land claims. 1 think it is a matter of responsibility, and it is also absolutely vital to any negotiations that we should know how the land will be apportioned and what are the costs involved.
The Member for Yukon also raised the fact that Keiwit was anxious to proceed immediately. Perhaps I may point out, for the benefit of the House, that negotiations are still taking place between the Department and the company in question, and that it was never the Department's intention to set aside the Keiwit proposal. The important thing now is to ensure that the Keiwit proposal, as so many other proposals and suggestions, is analyzed in the light of native land claims. I think that is extremely important. 1 think it is unrealistic of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce to ask for the creation of separate Departments of Northern Development and Indian Affairs. Anyone who knows the history of Canada's North, and 1 am sure my friends opposite do, knows perfectly well that all these issues are related. Anyone who decided to work only on the business aspects without considering the other issues would soon realize that not only is this a useless exercise, but it only makes the problem worse.
I think Members opposite who are as experienced as Members of this side of the House will agree that proceeding today with issuing licences and agreeing to large scale projects in the Yukon territory, while within a few weeks we can expect to have definitive proposals signed by various parties, would be premature and irresponsible on the part of the Department. I think we should realize that during the past four years, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has done tremendous work in bringing all parties towards an agreement that will be binding on the signatory parties. I think that is important. Of course it would be nice to be able to act quickly and get into the North and develop it, but doing so without having a formal agreement with the groups in the North would, in my view, be an abuse of authority. I think the Department is right in wanting to examine this aspect more specifically, before giving the go ahead for any project whatsoever.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House, that a number of suggestions were submitted to the Department, not only the Keiwit project, but many others. When I hear the Member for Yukon asking for the Minister's
Supply
resignation, 1 must say his request seems rather out of touch with reality, since that is not going to solve the problem. On the contrary, there may be a case for asking for additional time, although I agree these delays are a nuisance, but it does take time for people to understand each other. It takes time, if we are to avoid pitched battles, to reach a carefully considered agreement that will be acceptable to the two or three parties involved, because we have to consider the Yukon Territory as such, and the native people's issue and the position of the federal Government. It is a complex matter involving several parties. Once an agreement is concluded, I think we will be able to proceed quickly, while respecting the rights of all concerned. That is very important, and that is how this country should develop. I think this question can not be properly debated if we ignore these basic issues.
Where it says in today's motion, and I quote:
That this House regards the Government's failure to take action to encourage the development of Canada's resource industries and ensure their competitiveness in world markets as a betrayal of all Canadians-
I think that is a misrepresentation of facts and a verbal abuse of the present situation.
Anyone who has visited Canada's North, Mr. Speaker, will acknowledge that a great deal has been done about developing the North. The main problem in this country is our domestic markets. That is often the problem with which we are faced when dealing with the issue of developing these areas, and we must not forget another major problem, which is the high cost of access to these areas and the cost of the projects themselves, considering the constraints of our northern climate and the distances to be travelled. All this is, of course, related to the availability of transportation. Therefore, taking a very harsh stand against the Government and using censorious language is not going to solve the problem.
The development of the North will always be a tremendous challenge for Canadians. People tend to refer to it as a problem. It is a fact that developing the North takes a lot of imagination, a lot of financial resources and a lot of knowhow. But taken as a whole, those projects amount to quite a challenge. Several companies are now operating very far up north, including Crown corporations-I might point out that Crown corporations have made their presence felt in the Beaufort Sea and everywhere in the Arctic-and lots of research is being done to develop the North.
The way the motion reads, Mr. Speaker, it is suggested that we have not done everything possible and that it remains-
-a betrayal of all Canadians whose standard of living depends upon the resource sector of Canada's economy and calls upon the Government to bring an end to the nationalization of Canadian resource industries which has discouraged investment in Canada;
-but I think it does not reflect reality. Again the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) made every effort in the last budget to make it easier for companies to drill and come up with concrete projects to diversify the economy in Canada's Arctic lands, but all that cannot be done overnight.

November 21, 1983
Supply
Perhaps 1 should urge Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party to ask their leader just how much energy and effort is required to develop the North. Schefferville is only in the mid-north of Quebec, a far cry from the Far North. For those who are aware of the situation in Schefferville, Gagnon and Fermont, I will get back to the Schefferville issue some other day when the Leader of the Opposition is in the House, and 1 will talk about the development of Schefferville and Sept-Iles and about mining. It is important to know the full story of mining development in that region. In any case, just to keep the debate on an objective basis, let us ask the former Iron Ore Company president what it means to develop those places. It is a giant task. Even at that, no matter how governments or private enterprise might plan ahead, see what happened and what is happening now on the North Shore. None of the public or private sector experts had expected the collapse of the iron ore market, everybody was taken by surprise. So much so that, in 1974, the Iron Ore Company poured $350 million to install a concentrator at Sept-Iles, but it was never put into operation, not because the Sept-Iles workers had not done the job properly, but simply because the demand for iron ore pellets went flat between 1974 and 1979. After reading the motion under consideration, I realize that it is meaningless, although 1 understand why some Members may be impatient. I understand, but those remarks do not justify that impatience.
Mr. Speaker, it is much more rewarding to try to find formulas which are a bonanza for everybody rather than to impose development. When development is imposed without the agreement of all parties concerned, solutions which are worse than the problem are arrived at and, in the case of the development of the Yukon, I think it is imperative to settle the issue of the native peoples' territorial rights. All Members know that it has always been one of the key factors in the development of the North. The town of Schefferville was developed right next to an Indian reserve, and the company held lengthy negotiations with the Indians before reaching agreements.
I should point out again, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to agreements, we experience difficulties, not only with the federal Government or private companies, but also with a provincial Government, that of Newfoundland. Here again it boils down to tradition, because the North Shore Montagnais and the Naskapis are not allowed to hunt, fish or trap in the Labrador territory of Newfoundland. They will soon seek to meet with Mr. Peckford to find a solution. If someone wants to resort to force, the police will be called in. It is a very simple case, but people have to live with it every day and it is taking ever more significance.
I am saying that only to show that if it is difficult to convince the Newfoundland Government that the traditions of the North Shore Montagnais ought to be respected, it is just as difficult to launch major industrial projects unless all parties concerned have first agreed to a joint or common plan.
Within a few weeks, the report will be completed, agreements will have to be made, and 1 think that the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development will do his utmost to give every consideration to the suggestions made to him by various interests about the project on the north slope of Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, there is a last point 1 should like to make, since my time is rapidly running out. It is that we must ensure, once the native land claims are settled, that the various companies and Government levels act quickly to meet with departmental officials so that the different projects can go forward. It often happens that a project is reviewed long before a decision is made, but the Department hopes that once the land claims are settled, we can do as the Hon. Member for Yukon and other Members for northern and southern Canada have suggested and act quickly. I simply want to emphasize that provincial governments as well as private companies and Crown corporations should meet quickly with departmental officials in an effort to speed up the implementation of these projects.
The Minister was telling me earlier, Mr. Speaker, that his major objective as far as Yukon development is concerned was to create the maximum number of jobs and develop as many aspects of the Yukon economy as possible, because of the tremendous potential of the area and we would not want this development to be delayed by anyone. We want to make sure that will take into account the people who live in these regions and the companies working there will reap the benefits of that development. This is very important. I believe that Members of a Central Government must be aware of all the problems encountered in such negotiations. If by chance someone had wanted to undertake certain projects before all the agreements were in place, what would have happened? Everyone knows what would have happened, namely injunctions, court appearances and longer legal delays than those caused by the negotiations, especially now that these negotiations are coming to an end. 1 believe that the Minister had the responsibility to negotiate with the various parties involved so that once an agreement was reached the various projects would not be further delayed by legal proceedings. We really want to go forward and make progress once these agreements are reached.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close simply by saying that the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Yukon that the Minister should resign, is abusive and irrelevant. On the contrary, I would ask for everyone's forebearance in view of the fact that the Minister will have the pleasure of announcing projects for the Yukon in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? On debate, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling).


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). It is another indication of how badly things have turned out
November 21, 1983

under the leadership of the present Government. I rise today to speak on the crucial issue of forestry and to commend the Hon. Member for his motion.
I would like to begin by providing a brief outline. The Trudeau years have not been good for forestry. Since 1968, the forestry service staff has been cut in half, as has research money. In 1978, for example, a decision to cut funding by shutting down the Petawawa Forestry Research Station met strong resistance. Fortunately, the decision was reversed and this important research centre continues to work on the problem of reforestation.
Just last August, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), as Minister of the Environment, announced a forest renewal cost-sharing agreement. This agreement would see the two levels of government and private industry pouring $300 million immediately into reforestation, rising to a total of $650 million by 1987. Today, the sad fact is that the Government has not gone far on this agreement. It is too easy to argue that the federal Government is helpless in this regard, being actual landlord to a mere 1 per cent of Canada's huge tracts of forest. Taxes and export benefits are so vital to the federal Government that the lack of attention forestry has received in recent years is both ludicrous and tragic.
Today, more than a dozen significant interest groups from the Woodworkers Union to the Science Council of Canada have called attention to the dismal neglect of our forests. I also rise as a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party representing the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, which is very concerned and dependent upon our immediate environment for our livelihood.
My concern with this vital issue of forestry is that forests are an integral part of the acid rain dilemma. The riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is slowly being eroded and is dependent on a clean environment, as is our major industry of tourism. Tourism, in turn, is dependent upon good forests.
To understand the Canadian forest scene, one must look at land ownership. Unlike the United States where 60 per cent of the land is privately owned, Canada is almost entirely publicly owned. The federal Government owns about 40 per cent of the nation's almost four million square miles, the Provinces own about 50 per cent, and private owners own only 10 per cent. Within provincial boundaries the Provinces own 91 per cent of forest lands, with the federal share reduced to only 1 per cent and private land accounting for about 8 per cent.
Just what do these figures prove? They demonstrate that the use of our natural resources is unavoidably an immediate political issue. They also suggest that co-operation is absolutely necessary for effective national forestry and underlie the possibility of overlapping authority, wasteful repetition and internal dispute. All of these have arisen from time to time and are still present.
Curiously enough, Canadians are generally in the dark in this our largest industrial sector, perhaps because forestry has been an industry of the country for so long, nearly 400 years,
Supply
and because the forests seem so abundant that we take it for granted. For decades this indifference was of little consequence since there were always good supplies over the next hill. However, today, when decisions must be made which will have serious effects on every Canadian, the reduction in forestry has become a problem. The sheer size of the industry will surprise and enlighten most Canadians. There are more than 300,000 Canadians who work in jobs directly related to forestry. An additional 700,000 jobs are indirectly supported by the industry. Of these, many are manufacturing jobs; one out of every seven manufacturing dollars is forestry related.
In addition, the industry represents a vital component of some provincial economies. In the cases of New Brunswick and British Columbia, it amounts to almost half the value of all provincial manufacturing activity. The political importance of the industry is further heightened by the fact that it is frequently located in communities which are almost entirely dependent upon it for employment. At least 300 communities across Canada are one-industry forestry towns without viable options; that is why it is so important.
Forestry is Canada's major contributor to our balance of trade, outstripping the combined net contribution of mining, agriculture, fisheries and petroleum fuels. Sales of forest products, domestic and foreign, mean close to $25 billion in trade for Canada annually. Forestry also stimulates other industries. It is the largest purchaser of manufactured goods in most of Canada's Provinces, the second largest purchaser in Quebec and the fourth largest in Ontario. The industry generates more than $1 billion annually in taxes for the federal Government, and it produces another $1 billion or more in taxes for the various provincial Governments. This does not take into consideration the millions of dollars paid out in municipal taxes. By recent estimate, just 1 per cent of the forest land base may contribute up to 3,000 jobs and $20 million in provincial tax revenue. In light of these figures it is surprising that warnings about potential threats to the industry have been ignored by the Government.
By the 1970s, a number of structural weaknesses in the industry became evident. New pulp and paper products, particularly in the southern United States, began to compete effectively in traditional Canadian export markets. Their access to lower labour, production and resource costs, plus a wood supply that regenerates itself more quickly, meant that these producers had a considerable price advantage. Also during the 1970s studies suggested that Canada's economically exploitable forest resources were much less plentiful than expected. A lack of long-term planning had resulted in insufficient forest protection and poor use of some timber species. In addition, poor harvesting techniques and rudimentary silviculture practices meant that more potential usable timber was wasted and that reforestation did not keep pace with harvesting.
In eastern Canada these problems were compounded by outdated capital equipment in the pulp and paper sector which wasted energy, caused pollution and required labour intensive production techniques. Also, low profit margins and low

November 21, 1983
Supply
energy and wood supply costs gave little incentive to producers to re-equip. Thus, by the mid-1970s, a significant investment backlog had developed. Producers faced rising energy costs, tighter pollution control regulations, and machinery which was rapidly reaching the end of its productive life. The need for public action is obvious; today even more action is called for.
in its March 1983 report, the Science Council of Canada warned that the forests are essential to our social and economic wellbeing, yet we have allowed them to degenerate to a dangerous point. We have been felling, selling and shipping timber for so long and at such a rate that today a $23 billion industry is facing economic stagnation.
The comments of the Council and its report were welcomed. Concerned citizens, politicians from all sides of the House and spokesmen for industry have been warning the Government for many years that careless exploitation of the forest resource would mean its destruction. Today, despite improved utilization of the forest in the mills and efforts toward replacing the forest, the warnings have become more frequent. The real problem as I see it is that none of the forests we see around our urban areas are marketable.
Why are our forests disappearing? The first big attack on them is logging. We cut about 2.6 million acres each normal year. Of this, at least one-third is not sufficiently restocked. Each year, 400,000 acres are added to the National Science Research inventory. About 12 per cent of our forest land is now in this category. If we had this to cut again, we could sustain our present harvest for about 30 years on this land alone.
The forests are also diminished by pest and disease. At its height, the spruce budworm epidemic had defoliated more than 150 million acres of forest land, about two-third the size of Ontario. Annually we lose about $1 billion in potential forest trade because of insects. Something can be done about this. Fire is another major factor in forest loss. In the last few years we have lost up to six times the annual harvest to fires. Acid rain is becoming a great concern as far as it affects growth in our forests. On this matter, the Europeans are now bringing evidence of their concern. To all these factors we must add the withdrawal of the forest base for parks, reserves, roads, hydro lines, urban expansion and agricultural expansion. Finally, better co-ordination between the forestry organizations and Government Departments would help on this account.
What then is to be done? This morning we heard the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) outline what the Government has done and is doing and laud his accomplishments. Without sounding disrespectful, I commend the Minister. However, this is not enough. It is only a beginning. As he pointed out, there are still many priorities that remain. They are, more research and development which is essential for protection and a further increase of funds for the Canadian Forestry Service. To this list may the Official Opposition add a few of its own concerns or areas that the Minister can
consider when he approaches his colleagues for additional funds.
The Minister should enhance forestry to a higher prominence as a distinct federal ministry, eliminate areas of federal-provincial overlap and, where desirable, develop further joint management jurisdictions. In conjunction with the Provinces, he should encourage improved management and protection of the forest resource with the intention of increasing productivity by at least 50 per cent by the year 2000.
The Minister should consider accepting a share of forest-related costs consistent with the benefits received by Governments from the forest sector, linking federal funding to a set percentage of the federal revenue, averaged over five years, taken from that sector. Through tax measures, he should encourage industry involvement in more intensive forest management, regeneration and product research and, finally, manage more effectively the large federal lands currently being neglected.
It is rather a coincidence that in the Sunday Star the lead editorial was headed "Our Threatened Forests". I quote the editorial:
The forest industry is Canada's largest. One out of every seven of our manufactured goods is a forest product. And the industry is responsible, directly or indirectly for about a million jobs.
Obviously, it would be an unbelievable catastrophe to lose this resource through waste, mismanagement or neglect. Yet apparently we're doing just that.
Our forests are threatened. As Patricia Orwen reported in The Saturday Star recently, large areas of once-lush land already are barren. Canada's trees are being lost while much of the public believes that the supply is endless and that Government and industry are taking measures to protect that supply.
These beliefs are mistaken. The evidence says we're harvesting our trees faster than we replace them.
According to the Science Council of Canada, one-eighth of the country's productive forest area has become useless and will remain so for the next 60 to 80 years. And a 1981 federal discussion paper says Ontario's timber industry faces widespread shortages this decade, unless we do a better job of managing our forests. And we dare not wait.
Basing its calculation on the Ministry of Natural Resources' own figures, a New Democratic Party task force says we're writing off 37 acres of forest an hour. In 1980 and 1981, almost 30 per cent of what was cut-about 270 square miles-was laid to waste and not replanted. That's an area larger than metropolitan Toronto. Some forest will regenerate itself. Some of the waste land, it's true, is not suitable for replanting.
But the conclusion seems unescapable that, overall, a much greater effort is needed to replenish what has been cut throughout the Province.
Clearly, a new effort is needed. Ontario has made a start by entering into new forest management agreements with a number of large lumber companies. These agreements provide the companies with provincial money and require them to replant in areas they harvest.
Such agreements are good, and there should be more of them. But agreements alone are not enough. We need to treat forestry like farming. Trees are crops that must be tended and nurtured before we move down the road to look for more.
And we need to spend more money. The Science Council says we should more than double our funding for reforestation and research. Ottawa, Queen's Park and the timber industry may quibble about who should pay more for what, but there is no doubt more should be spent.
Otherwise we may squander the future of a $23 billion industry.
As a member of the Special Committee on Forestry, a few years ago I visited the forestry station at Pembroke. At Kemptville we saw the new hybrid poplar which is being
November 21, 1983

developed there. It grows much quicker and will provide the necessary raw product for our paper mills. There are currently about 3,000 acres, with a total of 5,000 well established acres. These plantations are increasing by 1,100 per year. There are 600 acres cared for by the Ministry and 500 acres privately run.
The emphasis of this program is on technology transfer. The companies involved, and I give them full credit, include Domtar and Granville Christian College as it purchases fuel for each. Other projects are by Ontario Paper, Malette Waterford and the Eddy Match Company. The Government is financing with a fifty-fifty split between the two levels of Government, and the 1980-84 term has provided $500,000. In addition, the National Research Council is involved.
It is interesting to note that it takes 60 years for a hardwood tree to reach maturity. Pulpwood trees require about 40 years. The hybrid poplar can be harvested within seven years. It will have a diameter of about seven inches. That is amazing.
As I pointed out earlier, we are in tough competition with Georgia, where vegetation and growth is much superior. Our friends in Sweden spend $1 billion a year on silviculture, protecting their forests, reforestation and protection against acid rain. We in this country spend probably no more than 25 per cent of that amount.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Acid Rain, Mr. Speaker, I am vitally interested in the subject and am interested in the fact that acid rain is doing considerable harm to our forests, not only to the seedlings but also to the mature trees. People have pointed out to me that during certain periods of time after a severe rain, one can actually see what has happened to the leaves of the trees from acid rain.
I know there are other Members who are interested in the subject of acid rain and I know how important this subject is. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to this, the most important industry in the entire Dominion of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? Debate.


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, once again 1 welcome the opportunity to say a few words about Canada's resource sector and what the Government has been doing to encourage and develop this sector over the past few years, particularly since the Government obtained its latest mandate in February, 1980. I am very proud to be a supporter of the Government at a time when economic fortunes have not been as promising as we would have liked.
The Government has been able to stabilize and preserve the welfare program at a time when other voices have been saying that it ought to cut back. The Government has been able to hold its own in terms of the balance of trade and in terms of exports to other countries. However, it is in the achievements of the Government in the resource sector over the past four years in particular that supporters of the Government can take
Supply
greatest pride. I say that having in mind particularly what the Government has done in the energy sector.
The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), when wording his resolution, must have had in mind the speech made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. [DOT] Mulroney) which was delivered in Calgary a few days ago. 1 am sure Hon. Members of the Opposition will remember that speech. They want very much to forget it but it is on the record. It will be difficult for them to forget that speech. We on this side will not let them forget that speech for a couple of reasons. The first reason we will not let them forget that speech is that it is the closest the gentleman from Central Nova has come to putting himself on the record in so far as any policy position is concerned. We will remember it for that reason. However, Mr. Speaker, it is a landmark speech for another reason. What the Leader of the Opposition put on the record one day, he tried to disown the following day and the day after that. He will have difficulty disowning that particular speech, but that is another subject, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River must have had that particular speech in mind when he worded his resolution because, in some respects, it seems to me that the Hon. Member cribbed some of the wording and perhaps some of the ideas from the very first speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of energy policy. At that time, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that he would change some of the energy measures and would abolish others, but in the end he really did not tell us what energy policy he would follow as the Leader of the Government. A few days after that speech, no one is really sure what it is that the Leader of the Opposition wants to change. I am anxious to know and 1 believe all Canadians are anxious to know what he wants to change. It is a pity that we may never know.
In the meantime, Hon. Members of the Opposition continue to ramble on condemning policies without ever telling the Government what they would put in place of those policies. For example, the Leader of the Official Opposition accused the Government of over-taxing the oil industry. The question to be asked is, would a Tory Government tax the industry less? Are Tory Members telling us that they would tax it less? The oil industry now receives 50 per cent of energy revenues; that is right, 50 per cent of revenues as compared, for example, to the 46 per cent it received just five years ago in 1978. The current share of 50 per cent is much higher, for example, than it was three or four years ago. What was the share in 1979 when the Tories were in power? It was 41 per cent; that is right, 41 per cent under the Tory regime. The industry now receives an additional 9 per cent, totalling 50 per cent of revenues in 1983. In terms of revenue shares, Mr. Speaker, the Government feels that the industry is being treated fairly.
In terms of dollars, the industry revenue position has increased dramatically from $4.5 billion under the Tory Government in 1979 to $11.7 billion today. Industry revenues are now two and a half times what they were when the Tories were in power four years ago. Tory Members who were in power

November 21, 1983
Supply
four years ago are those same Tories who are now somehow implying that the industry is not being treated fairly. 1 tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the industry is being treated more fairly now than it was four years ago under the Tories. It is receiving $11.7 billion this year compared to the $4.5 billion it received four and a half years ago under the Tory Government.
I am not suggesting that that kind of money, although it is a monumental amount, is too much. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) believes that it may be too much, but of course his socialist views are well known to the House and to the country. I do not agree with his views, but I respect his right to hold them. He and I share many of the same views on the fishery issue and I congratulate him on his enlightenment in at least some areas of the economy.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that $11.7 billion is too large a sum for the industry to receive. The Government thinks that it is a fair share. Indeed, I think that the provincial Governments and the industry would say the same of the current federal share of 20 per cent. The provincial Governments and the industry would say that that is fair as well, and they have told us exactly that. However, Opposition Members continue to blame federal taxes for any negative energy event. Why are they not honest with themselves and with Canadians? Would they settle for a lower federal share? Would they increase the deficit through tax concessions? Is that what they are trying to tell us?
Another common Tory argument is that the effect of our policies has been to discourage investment. Again, Tory Members should check the facts and listen to the authorities on this subject. Just a few weeks ago, for example, Oilweek magazine, a respected Canadian magazine published in Calgary, reported its assessment of oil industry activity. Oilweek magazine estimates that there will be considerable increases in oil and gas industry investment. It expects petroleum exploration and development expenditures in Canada to total $5.6 billion this year, a record level.
While Oilweek magazine is confirming what the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) has been saying for some time, which is that we are headed for record levels of investment to the tune of $5.6 billion this year, and while that is the reality and everyone in the oil patch has been saying that that is the reality, what have the Tory Members been saying? They have been saying that it is not enough to have record investment projections at a time when the economy has been fairly slow, and I hope they know that it has been slow. The fact has been with us for some time. Yet they persist in maintaining the fantasy that things are as bad as they wish them to be. Things are not as bad but are much better then the Tories would wish them to be. Oilweek magazine says so and others say so.
From our own perspective, the amount mentioned of $5.6 billion in investment is over 70 per cent more than the industry invested only four short years ago. Who was in power at the time, Mr. Speaker? That is right, the good old Tory Members who now say: "Not enough, too little, too late". In four years, since the Canadian electorate kicked the Tories out of office, this Government, in collaboration with the provincial Governments and the oil industry, has managed an increase in investment of more than 70 per cent-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Debts. A lot of debt.


Roger Simmons: -to $5.6 billion this year.


Donald W. Munro: Debt.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) should really watch his blood pressure. I would not want him to get overly exercised by what I am saying.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Then be careful of what you are saying, Roger.


Roger Simmons: I am merely telling the truth. I know he does not like the truth.


Donald W. Munro: Why do you not try the truth for a change?


Roger Simmons: And I invite him, if he has some documentation, to contradict the figures I just gave him. And I will give those figures again: a 70 per cent increase in investment since the Tories were booted out of office by a smart Canadian electorate; an investment this year of $5.6 billion-


Mr. Stewart:: Added to the deficit. Right on top of the deficit.


Roger Simmons: Is the Hon. Member saying that that is not true? If so, he is contradicting the respected Oilweek magazine in Calgary. But he has been known to contradict respected sources before. He is known to have had egg all over his face before. However, if he wants to contradict, I invite him to contradict.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I don't know how you get that report.


Roger Simmons: The gentleman from Bow River wonders as he often does. I can stand before him because I have the facts straight out of one of the most respected oil magazines in western Canada. I suggest he read it some time. He might learn something. It seems to me I have hit a nerve somewhere.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, no, no.


Roger Simmons: In this latest Tory motion they condemn once again our decision to expand the role of Petro-Canada. Where have we heard that tune before? It seems to me we heard it just before the last election. Remember the great Tory plan, the great Tory promise? I do not mean the one to move the embassy, but that is another one we can talk about. I mean the plan to dismantle PetroCan. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, how they were going to bring in a new regime? They were going to privatize PetroCan.


Gordon Edward Taylor: And make it less than 18 cents.
November 21, 1983


Roger Simmons: Does the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) deny that? Does he say he never made that promise?


Gordon Edward Taylor: To make it less than 18 cents.


Roger Simmons: He made the promise. He would like to forget it now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Eighteen cents a litre, Roger.


Roger Simmons: The people of Canada are not going to forget it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Now it is 76 cents.


Roger Simmons: The Conservatives made a promise to dismantle PetroCan, to "privatize it" in their words.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How about the 76 cents? You should remember your promise.


Roger Simmons: Then the Conservatives got in power and soon, when they had access to the facts instead of the fantasy-


Gordon Edward Taylor: It was 76 cents after you got in power.


Roger Simmons: -they learned the people of Canada wanted PetroCan. They learned that the people of Canada still want PetroCan, and that is why we have expanded the role of PetroCan. What would they do now with PetroCan, Mr. Speaker? We heard the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) tell the people in Calgary what he would do. I think he has weasled a bit since and changed his mind a few times. However, that is typical of the Tory stance on PetroCan. They have had a different policy for most days of the week.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How about your 76 cents when you said it would be less than 18 cents? It was a different policy once you were in power. Your face should be red.


Roger Simmons: Someone was telling me earlier today Mr. Speaker, that I was wearing my "Tory" suit. It is not a blue suit, but it is a Tory suit, nevertheless. It has a pocket inside on this side and another pocket here. It is a very convenient type of suit. It is called a Tory suit because in one pocket you can have a policy about any issue-


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 could buy a suit, too, if I did not pay my taxes.


Roger Simmons: -and if the public does not like that policy, you can always pull the other one out of the other pocket. The Tories have a policy in every pocket depending on the audience they have on that particular day.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I could buy ten new suits if I did not pay my
taxes.


Roger Simmons: Why does the Hon. Member for Bow River not learn that it is not how loud he shouts which makes the point, but how well he does his homework?


Gordon Edward Taylor: You had better practice what you preach.
Supply


Roger Simmons: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not privatize Petro-Canada because Petro-Canada-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You set an example and we will follow it.


Roger Simmons: -and the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) agrees with this-has done great things for this country. He agrees with that. Most sensible people in this country agree with that. We have been known to take good ideas and make them available to the people of Canada. We have never denied taking good ideas from whatever source.


An Hon. Member:: Pensions, medicare.


Roger Simmons: Even if the Tories give us a good idea, we will take that idea.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is the only place you get them.


Roger Simmons: We should get ideas from the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The reason this Government and the Liberal Party have been able to be in power so long, have been asked for so long by the people of Canada to provide good Government, is that we have listened to the people of Canada in terms of the kinds of programs they want, how they want the economy stimulated, what kind of welfare programs they want. We have listened to those people and we have then, using their tax dollars as is proper under law, given them the programs which allow this country to move forward.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What about the 18 cents?


Roger Simmons: If the Hon. Member wants to talk about the 18 cents, he should put that in context also. What the Tories said in their December, 1979 budget is that no matter what the price of energy was, they would add another 18 cents on top of everything else. That is what they said. And you will remember the people's answer to that, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why don't you tell the truth?


Roger Simmons: PetroCan represents an achievement-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have gone to 76 cents. What is the matter with you? Go down to the gas pumps.


Roger Simmons: -an achievement for Canadians. The Tories condemn our policy to expand Petro-Canada, but condemnations aside, we will continue to allow PetroCan to play a good role, an expanded role in this country, because it is serving Canadians very well indeed. Most of the progress to date in expanding the role of Canadians in the energy industry has been achieved through private sector initiatives.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Right on.


Roger Simmons: The Tories condemn even this because we help Canadian companies through our PIP program. The Leader of the Opposition said he would change the PIP program. He would stop the progress. He would apply his Schefferville formula. He would close it down. That is what he would do.

November 21, 1983
Supply


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: He would get a letter from the former Minister of Mines thanking him for it.


Roger Simmons: He is not going to get the chance to apply his Schefferville formula to the PIP program to the energy industry. The people of Canada will not give him a chance to shut it down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He would not close down half of the industry in Canada.


Roger Simmons: He would do whatever Cleveland told him to do, such as he did in Schefferville. Do not tell me what he would do. He talks about monkeys and organ-grinders. He knows all about organ-grinders. The organ-grinder was in Cleveland that day. Do you want to know where the monkey was?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We know where the monkey is right now. We are watching the monkey, Roger.


Roger Simmons: There is no doubt in my mind who would call the shots on the energy industry if the Tories were in power. The multinationals have always called the shots for the Tories.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The people will.


Roger Simmons: The multinationals in Cleveland and Chicago. The Hon. Member is agreeing with me. The people in Chicago and Cleveland. That is what I have been trying to tell him.


Gordon Edward Taylor: No, the people of Canada.


Roger Simmons: Finally he has the point. The people in Cleveland and Chicago-that is in the United States, you understand that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Well, it will not be a handful of Liberals telling them what to do.


Roger Simmons: We do not settle for an organ-grinder who lives in Cleveland. That is the difference between my Party and the Party of the Hon. Member for Bow River. We recognize organ-grinders and we will tell you where the organ-grinders are. The organ-grinders for us are the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I suggest that the reporters are having some difficulty getting all these interjections. Would you interject a little slower, please?


Gordon Edward Taylor: If the Hon. Member talks directly to me, I have the right to talk back. He is not talking to the Chair.


Roger Simmons: Of course, the Hon. Member for Bow River has the right to talk back. The only requirement is that he should say something when he talks back.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I know what I am talking about. You have been on your feet for 15 minutes and all you have said is slander.


Roger Simmons: How does the gentleman from Bow River know what I said? He has not been listening. If he will listen for a minute, I will tell him some good things about the PIP program.


Gordon Edward Taylor: All right, I will listen for a minute. Let us hear what you have to say. One minute only.


Roger Simmons: Instead of recognizing our PIP program as a positive instrument, which it is, and a program which is needed to help Canadians play a greater role in the energy investments, the Tories, of course, are screaming discrimination. They choose to ignore the fact that there is room for Canadian investment and foreign investment. We have delivered this message-not only in speeches but by working out deals, such as for example, a proposed $600 million heavy oil upgrader in Saskatchewan; two projects to extract oil from the tar sands in Alberta; a production plant at Wolf Lake costing $200 million, and another expansion at Cold Lake costing $300 million. Are these the facts or are they not?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us how many you have closed down.


Roger Simmons: The gentleman is confused again. The one that was closed down is at Schefferville, and we did not close that one down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You closed down scores of them in Alberta.


Roger Simmons: We have two new ones at Cold Lake and Wolf Lake, and one in Saskatchewan. Those are just three of the many projects made possible by a very exciting, aggressive energy policy of the good Liberal Government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Are there any questions? The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say-


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the natural rotation of speakers the NDP gets a speaker for every third speaker from the Conservative Party. I was on my feet at the same time as the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and I believe I should have been recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The way the debate proceeds, whether it be on a Government motion or an Opposition motion, there is a first round of speakers, one from each Party. That occurred this morning. Depending on which side presents the motion, in this case the Official Opposition, the ratio is four Conservatives to three Liberals to one NDP. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) will be the fourth Conservative, following which the Hon. Member will be recognized.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's
November 21, 1983

(Mr. Simmons). I have always had some sadness that 1 was a Cabinet Minister for only nine months. I truly hoped that it would have been a lot longer than that. But ten days is absolutely ridiculous.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where did he go anyway? Roger left.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The issue in the motion today, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious one. It cuts right to the heart of political debate in Canada. This country is controlled by that political ideology and those people who believe that interventionism is the right way to rule the people. On the other hand, I come from a Party which has a tendency to believe that behaviourism is the right way. If you define your laws and the sense of behaviour properly, and allow people to work in widely different activities within those laws and patterns of behaviour, then you will bring out the magic of the human powers of innovation and development, the incentives which encourage people to work and create wealth, and you will not have the dilemma we are facing in this country today.
The motion is a very serious one, Sir. As I was wandering through the Lambert Royal Commission Report on Financial Management and Control, I was reminded of an excerpt from a speech by Prime Minister James Callaghan to a Labour Party conference on September 28, 1976. I would like to read that into the record because I think it goes right to the heart of the reason for the wording of this motion today. It says:
When we reject unemployment, as we all do... then we must ask ourselves unflinchingly-what is the cause of high unemployment? Quite simply and unequivocally it is caused by paying ourselves more than the value of what we produce ... It is an absolute fact of life which no government, be it left or right, can alter ... We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and that insofar as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy. And each time that happened the average level of unemployment has risen .. . And each time we did this the twin evils of unemployment and inflation have hit hardest those least able to stand them-our own people, the poor, the old and the sick.
What we are dealing with here is that even leaders of opposing ideology share the view that modern day parliamentary democracies so far have been unable to bring their spendthrift and wasteful habits under control, each apparently aware that not to do so will aggravate the economic and social tragedy facing us. That is the political dilemma we are in. It does not matter whether you are of the interventionist ideology or the behaviourilist ideology, here is a British Prime Minister addressing the Labour Conference in Britain in 1976 and laying out the dilemma. It is a Catch-22 situation. We stand in this House and yell and shout at each other, a perfect example of which was the performance of the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's, who fancies himself an absolute and perfect politician; that is what politics is all about. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am not here for that type of behaviour, that type of debate or that type of comment. I have learned a little bit about history, and the other day I saw an article in Richard J. Needham's "A
Supply
Writer's Notebook" which I thought was very applicable to the dilemma we are in today. He points out that:
In countries like Malaysia and Sri Lanka, the industrial revolution is just beginning; but in Britain, where it originated some 150 years ago, the industrial revolution is drawing to its end.
Then he points out some very interesting data from a Washington Post editorial:
In the past 10 years employment in British manufacturing has dropped 30 per cent. British steel production, declining steadily, is now about half of the 1973 level. Automobile production is about half of the 1973 level. Ten years ago just over one-fourth of the cars sold in Britain we imported; currently well over half of them are.
Does it sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? We are always just a little bit behind the British Fabian socialist movement, but we have imported the mistakes they made which they are now trying to correct. It goes on:
Increasingly, Britain buys its manufactured goods from other countries.
That is the dilemma the mother country of the industrial revolution faces today. So where do they go? What are they going to do? There are some 55 million in that country and some three million are now unemployed. It is pointed out that there is nothing to prevent that figure from going to four, five or six million. This raises the question that was asked some weeks ago in Newark, New Jersey:
-what do you do, what can you do, with a huge surplus population unwilling or unable to support itself?
He points out that that was the problem that destroyed Rome. What we are dealing with is an element of human nature which seems to just cycle in and out of societies as time goes along. II think we are at a point where we had better wake up. We had better get our anticipation levels down. We had better understand the reason for this Opposition motion today put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). We had better get rid of the political rhetoric and address the Catch-22 situation that we are in to see if we cannot put the nation on an emergency basis of some kind and start to become competitive in the world once again. It points out too in this article of Needham that Ben Franklin said in 1789:
Though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries (for politicians) we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations, and there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them. Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the princes or enslaving of the people. Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could follow the example of Pharaoh- get first of all the people's money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever.
These words apply today, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard the Member for Burin-St. George's talk about the National

November 21, 1983
Supply
Energy Program under which the Government gathers and collects it all up and then delivers it out only to those people who will do as the rulers and the princes want them to do. It is called suasion. The other thing we have today is a Government that puts priority on information. It shovels and bulldozes unbelievable quantities of money into advocacy, information, propaganda and advertising. This is the stage we are at. This is the ultimate stage of the interventionists and it is bringing the nation down to the point where it can no longer produce the wealth to carry the social programs that we have all been so proud of.
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and others that there is recovery coming and everything is going to be all right. We should keep our eye on the ball. If you look at the Royal Bank trendicator you will find that the balloon coming up has now levelled off and is flattening. There is not really going to be a recovery in this country that means much more than a temporary aberration of some 20 or 30 months until we start to see the products of our resources, our mining, our harvesting, our refining, moving out once again to world markets.
Is it not interesting that we have moved so much of our foreign assistance and our know-how and engineering into the creation of competitive plants in Third World countries? It is very generous of us indeed. But our at-home resource production has to compete with very modern plants that we have put into Third World and other emerging countries. We have a lot of pressure on any recovery. I do not see, and economists that I talk to do not see, the raw products of our resources really moving back in a stable fashion in the world markets for nine to 11 years. I think that not until we see those products from our natural resources moving out again into world markets, or moving into Canadian plants that are capable of giving "value-add" to them, are we going to see the movement of capital goods. It is "value-add" that creates more jobs. Until you see the movement of capital goods you are not really going to address the increasingly serious unemployment factor in Canada. You get bulges from railroad infrastructure building and from housing, and you get bulges from infrastructures like northeast coal. It is these infrastructures that are so important to us in hard times. That is where we should have enough money in the bank to be able to spend money. We have put well over a billion dollars into northeast coal and all we have done is to make available two sources of supply of metallurgical coal on the same coast of Canada to the Japanese and to world markets which they can bid one against the other. We do not seem to be able to plan, use and market what we have wisely. We therefore aggravate and increase the dilemma that we have.
Mr. Speaker, we have a Government with a Minister of Revenue who absolutely attacks and destroys all the junior mining exploration in western Canada. That is where all the risk money is. You have to attract real gamblers into the game of staking claims, diamond drilling, trenching and bringing about something that has the potential of being harvested as a mine or put into a mine and something that can come through
to various classes of refineries. They attack those types of investors before they actually get their hands on their winnings. They tax them with capital gains when they exercise their options into other paper certificates. It is just throwing cold water on the whole industry and all that type of activity in our part of the world. It is deliberate. It is the interventionist mindset that destroys the opportunity of all the frustrated talent that exists throughout the country in creating the wealth and paying the taxes that we need to support our system. Mr. Speaker, we have truly lost our sense of excellence.
I was in the B.C. Research Council the other day. That is a very frustrated organization. It is a group of men and women who have tremendous talents and abilities. They have developed and broken through and are the world leaders in the biological reduction of ores to deliver pure metal. They have even done something that the biologists said could not be done. In the microbiological leaching of ores and the delivery of pure metal out of these leaching piles they have been able to stop the process at elemental sulphur. Now we do not have to worry about disposing of sulphuric acid or the contamination it causes. Can they get a nickel from the federal Government to assist them with this work? No. All of this leaching and all of this technology has to be sold in Mexico and Sweden and other markets in order to get the pennies that these brilliant people need for their research.
While 1 was on that tour I saw absolute breakthroughs in the formulation of roe and caviar. It is sitting there unused, probably to be picked up by the Japanese. It is Canadian minds that create these things. We do not allow the cost of marketing and research to be a deductible item with the incentive to take a risk so that people who understand these words in the market can act on them. No, it has to be somebody in a white coat in a government lab, or somebody at a desk in Ottawa who will say, "Yes, you may have these dollars to do this and that." As a result, we stifle and smother the country.
We have the national energy policy with all its Crown corporations. We have Canagrex which was politically forced by tobacco growing areas. We now find a key executive from the tobacco industry as its chief executive officer. We have a fishery takeover in the Atlantic region, where the problem has probably been lack of capital for processing and getting a high quality product to market. Mr. Speaker, the other night the Minister said, "Do not worry Ron, it is going to come out in the Pacific. We are going to spend $200 million out there next year. We are going to take over a major processing plant". There are two different fisheries in Canada. There is the Atlantic fishery and the Pacific fishery. We sell every single thing we produce in the Pacific fishery. Some of our smaller operators have been caught as a result of the botulism scare on an Alaska pack. But we are peanuts compared to Alaska. At least we have been able to sell and produce a high quality pack.
November 21, 1983

Some of our small packers get into trouble and require a special agency to help them with good harvests so that they can finance inventories over a hurdle. Perhaps that is an endorsement which some commission must give to the bank in order to subsidize them over these inventory hurdles when they get into trouble. 1 assume that is much of the problem that exists on the Atlantic coast.
The Department of Fisheries is moving into and taking over the Pacific fishery with a massive Crown corporation that will eventually eliminate everyone else. It will all be state-controlled because that Department has a sense of possessiveness over that resource. It keeps using the argument that the resource has to be protected and that it is reducing at 2 per cent compound per annum. However, that is totally misleading, and if the Minister keeps saying that, he will be challenged for misleading the House and the people of Canada, because I have in my hand the annual report of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. This commission works with approximately $31 million a year. It is poverty stricken, receiving $15 million from Canada and $15 million from the United States. This 1983 report shows that the $30 million a year has created an upward curve on the return of fish to spawning grounds. It has created an upward curve on pinks and sockeye in terms of harvest on all the fish sources and fish runs for which it is responsible. If these dedicated scientists in the international salmon commission can achieve this with $30 million, there must be something wrong with our Department of Fisheries and Oceans which needs over $1.5 billion to run its operation. It has recently asked for another $484 million. Perhaps the trouble with most of the delivery of the federal services is that they are all too fat. Perhaps if we returned to thinner budgets and thinner operating expenses, these services could be delivered more effectively. For instance, the Fisheries Department disallowed patrol personnel on the fishery patrol vessels to clear streams any longer, such as clearing a fish stream of a fallen tree. That is now disallowed. I have seen university students who were hired on crews working their way up a stream to clear it when they suddenly received a call from their office saying that there is no more money and they should return from the bush.
The behaviour in the federal service in terms of the delivery of quality input into the preservation of that resource is unbelievable.
The reason given by the Government for getting into marketing in the Pacific is that the fish resource on the Pacific Coast is reducing 2 per cent compound per annum. In 1977 I was assured by the Department of Fisheries, when I was asking questions in committee, that it did not need any more resource to protect or conserve the species on the West Coast. Suddenly, it admits that the resource is going down 2 per cent compound per year, when I can show that, as stated in the annual report of a small organization like the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission with $30 million, it has an upward curve of performance taking place. If we took another $30 million from the $1.5 billion which we seem to
Supply
spend on fisheries and oceans and gave it to them, they could open up new tributaries for the Fraser River fishery and perform miracles out there. That international commission is absolutely frustrated by the lack of support it is receiving from the Government.
I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, but the motion is important. The motion is bogged down in a Catch-22 situation, which is the struggle between the interventionists, who are represented by the Liberal Government and the NDP, and those of us who believe that laws defining behaviour and tax incentives allowing the magic of man's inventiveness to explode are the political issue. It is this Catch-22 that causes motions like this in Canada today.
This House will remain irrelevant until we can make a breakthrough and address the Catch-22 situation. It is obvious from the history of Great Britain that the interventionist mentality will destroy a country in terms of creating enough wealth to sustain its social services. I believe that both the people of Britain and Canada sense that we are running out of time and we must begin to become more relevant. The reason the House is irrelevant is that we hear these nasty political speeches such as we heard from the Member for Burin-St. George's today instead of fundamental debate in addressing and resolving the Catch-22 situation that we have in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) for bringing this motion forward. I and my Party are in substantial agreement with it except for the unfortunate phrase calling for an end to nationalization of Canadian resource industries which has discouraged investment in Canada.
This phrase essentially reflects the Tory tendency to let the right wing ideology interfere with a very legitimate concern they have about Canada's mismanaged resource economy. Do Conservatives really oppose all programs of nationalization, even when they are needed to save an industry, to save a community such as Ocean Falls or to save thousands of jobs? We know that former Conservatives did not oppose nationalization when it was needed to save some investors who had put their money into some bankrupt railway schemes. They were not afraid to nationalize then in order to protect the Bank of Commerce. Now they say they are opposed to all nationalization. We saw the same kind of right-wing ideology intrude into legitimate business when the Liberal, Conservative and Socred coalition in British Columbia brought in its restraint legislation. There is no doubt that the Socreds won a mandate for restraint in the May 5 election, but they did not have the kind of mandate to put an end to the Human Rights Commission. They did not have a mandate to do away with the rentalsman or to destroy unions. The NDP Opposition in the B.C. legislature and Solidarity on the streets and on the picket lines have forced the Government to modify that legislation slightly.

November 21, 1983
Supply
The Tories should consider carefully the consequences of this ideology getting in the way of common sense. It is something with which Canadians are becoming concerned with respect to the Tories.
As I said, we are concerned, as is the Member for Prince George-Peace River, about the serious nature of the resource industry crisis that is facing Canada right now. The crisis that Canada faces in terms of its economy is based on the fact that our whole economy since the Second World War has looked to Canadian prosperity on the basis of branch plant manufacturing on the one hand and the exploitation and export of resources on the other. The whole Liberal welfare scheme that we have come to depend on is based upon those two factors. When we are now in the situation in which branch plants have been closed down or are running at half capacity and our export resource industries are in trouble, we find that the Liberal Government and the Conservative Opposition are talking about cutbacks in basic standards of welfare. We have seen cutbacks in the established programs of financing and we have seen capping on pensions. We have heard talk about questioning the whole principle of universality for family allowance by the Liberal Government. A few years ago we saw the implementation of a block funding system for medicare that really caps the federal contribution there.
The fact is that our Canadian economy grew after the Second World War but did not really develop. It was something like a force-fed turkey that was fed until it grew large but it never really developed its own muscles so it could be an independent bird. It was just force-fed until it could be brought to someone's table and carved up. However, now we are in a situation where our branch plants are shut down. At the same time the best of our resources have been creamed and we are in a situation where other resources are harder to reach, harder to develop and we face increased competition from other areas of the world. At the present time and for the last several years, Canada has run deficits for manufactured goods of $20 billion a year. This means we have to export more and more of our resources in raw and semi-processed states in order to keep our balance of payments in line. We have seen developments take place that often ride roughshod over the needs of aboriginal people.
I was interested to hear the House Leader for the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) saying that they should go ahead with the developments on the north slope without real regard for the land claims process under way. In our Party we recognize that Canadian prosperity depends now upon a proper development of our resources and a proper export policy for these resources. Canadian prosperity will depend on these for a long time. We cannot have Canadian prosperity by a sell-out of our resources. Perhaps the best example of a sell-out is the prebuilt pipeline that was pushed through by the Liberal Government and supported by the Conservatives a few years ago. This was the building of the prebuilt pipeline to export natural gas into the mid-west United States at a time when there were supposed to be
ironclad guarantees that once the lower part of the line had been built and once the gas was flowing into the United States the Americans would then finish the rest of the line so that Alaskan gas could flow through Canada. Any gas that was sold from Alberta would be replenished by Alaskan gas. There were supposed to be thousands of jobs for Canada. Where are those jobs now? Where are the spin-offs from this project? All we see is the export of our resources and a piece of paper that was supposed to be an ironclad guarantee. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) cannot give a date for the beginning of the pipeline and the Tories are strangely silent on this whole issue.
Another example where we see a neglect of our resources is in the area of fisheries. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Salmonid Enhancement Program that was originally designed to invest $150 million in federal money over five years in phase one was stretched to include seven years so that money was stretched over a longer period of time instead of being spent when it was most needed. At the same time, when money should have been spent, some $21 million was estimated to be needed to plan for phase two, only $5 million of planning money was spent planning for phase two on the Salmonid Enhancement Program. Now we are in a kind of interim period. No one is sure what the long-range plans are for SEP. On the Pacific Coast, and I am sure the East Coast as well, we are all aware of the Government's failure to protect fish habitat. There is a continuing shrugging of shoulders in the Fisheries Department in the face of expanding log booming in our estuaries. There is a lack of any activity at all to protest the leaching of toxic chemicals and sewage into fish habitat. There is inadequate protection of spawning channels. We see the turning of a blind eye to steep slope logging that destroys streams. But perhaps the prime example with which we are concerned today in terms of the federal Government's neglect of Canada's resources is in the forest industry. As speaker after speaker has pointed out, it is Canada's number one industry.
The attitude of waste and prodigality that we have adopted with respect to this resource in the past is something that we are beginning to pay for now. i can remember as a child, when we moved to our farm on Vancouver Island, walking through the bush and finding log after log that had been cut 10 or 15 years previously. These were logs that were three feet through and 40 feet long. They were just left because they did not meet the exacting demands of the mills at that time. They had some kind of a pitch seam in them, and so they were left to rot or to be cut up by farmers for firewood. If we had those logs today, they would be number one prime. We wasted this resource because it was cheap and we thought it was inexhaustible. We treated it with contempt.
As Canadians we are very much aware of our northern tree line, a line that stretches roughly diagonally from the Yukon into southeastern Canada. North of this line we know that climatic conditions prohibit the growth of trees. Perhaps we should also be aware of a second tree line in southern Canada. Here we find that wasteful logging practices, growing urbani-
November 21, 1983

zation, hydroelectric projects, transportation corridors and the need for agricultural land are slowly but surely eroding the total forest land base in Canada. In addition, there are additional pressures from environmental fisheries and parks interests.
It has been estimated that for every 130 hectares of average productive forest land in British Columbia that is lost we also lose one permanent sustained job. Yet we are in a situation where over one million hectares of forest land in British Columbia needs reforestation. We are still falling behind some 20 to 50 hectares a year.
In 1981, commercial forest land had declined in B.C. over the last decade between 16 per cent and 20 per cent. It is estimated that over the next 20 years there will be a further reduction in the forest land base in British Columbia of about 25 per cent, amounting to some 2.3 million hectares. This amounts to the loss of thousands of jobs, simply because we are not concerned about maintaining our forest base. The situation in other Provinces is similar. Perhaps some of these factors can be checked by better land management. We still face a declining forest base.
This morning 1 listened with interest as the Minister responsible for the Canadian forest industry talked about the federal-provincial forest agreements. It was rather sad to reflect that only two agreements with Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have been signed and to note that a renewal has been signed in Newfoundland. Nothing yet has been signed with the four Provinces which produce the most in terms of Canadian forestry, namely, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Knowing the present Government of British Columbia, I have to admit that not all the failure can lie on the federal side. In British Columbia, as 1 mentioned earlier, we have a phoney program of restraint. This has resulted in some very severe cutbacks in forestry.
1 was talking with a forestry official this past week. He told me they were faced with a crisis where there might not be enough seedlings for planting in 1984 because the provincial Government decided that in the name of restraint it is going to cut back on its nursery programs. This is false economy of the most blatant kind, Mr. Speaker. If trees are not planted in the year in which the ground is ready, then all kinds of weeds and weed species come up, and the whole task of site preparation becomes very expensive if there is to be a proper seeding at some later time.
Our provincial Government is being most foolish in this so-called restraint. While we can condemn the provincial Government, we also have to ask how vigorously the federal Government has pursued these federal-provincial agreements when only two Provinces have signed them. We in our Party certainly regret the low status of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) in the Cabinet pecking order. There is now a very real fear that the money allocated to forestry programs will be redistributed to other Ministers, unless the Minister of
Supply
the Environment is able to hold on to that money later this week.
What is the matter? Perhaps the Minister should have been more forthcoming in his speech. Perhaps he should have told the House why the Provinces are not signing the agreements. What is the hold-up? Is the problem the false mythology or ideology of restraint, or is there some real problem with the federal-provincial agreements which he is trying to get them to sign? He did not really answer the question as to why his Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of forestry quit. We on this side of the House were very encouraged by some of the initiative he had shown in trying to get some federal activity in this whole area. However, there is a well-grounded suspicion that the Assistant Deputy Minister quit out of frustration with the low priority the Government gave to the entire forestry situation.
The crisis in our forest industry is now. We need action now. People want answers now from the federal Minister responsible. Why is something not happening? Now is the time when people are looking for work. We have unemployed foresters. We have young people who would love to be involved in forestry projects. Now is the time for the provincial Governments, the federal Government and forestry companies to be putting more money into forestry programs. Certainly, private corporations have not done their share. British Columbia Forest Products, one of the more progressive forestry firms in British Columbia, has cut back on its forestry component. Of course, part of the reason was that BCFP, like many other big companies, a couple of years ago became involved in cannibalizing other countries. BCFP has had to face a $8 million per year interest charge for taking part in the cannibalization of the western forest industry.
During the Remembrance Day week recess, 1 had an opportunity to visit one of the EBAP programs in my riding. It was very interesting to see some of these young people at work pruning and thinning, doing jobs which the forests badly required. I agree with critics that this kind of program should be paid for by British Columbia Forest Products on whose land this is taking place. However, it is still a good program. There are problems with it. Although it has a five-month extension, it is more or less on an ad hoc basis. It is involved in topping up the unemployment insurance of young people. I talked with three young people whose UIC would expire in two or three days. As soon as their UIC benefits were finished, they lost their jobs at the same time. Somehow it seemed to be a very twisted and perverse way of creating jobs. At the very time when young people had been trained in what needed to be done and were of most value to the project, they were laid off because their UIC benefits expired. Certainly we in Canada can do better for our young people and our forests by providing something other than a stop-gap program to top up UIC benefits which lays them off at the time their benefits expire.
Last week, Kenneth Greaves, President of the Ontario Forest Industry Association, pointed to the need for a massive increase, a quadruple increase, in the amount of money the federal and provincial Governments have to spend on forestry.

November 21, 1983
Supply
If we want to maintain our position as the world leading exporter of forest products, we have to spend $1 billion a year on forestry. The Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters presented a very significant brief to the Macdonald Commission on the Economy. It pointed out that the number of personyears available to the Canadian Forest Service had declined by more than 50 per cent since 1968. Before the Tories cry too much over this, they should be reminded that these cuts were the result of their favourite program of privatization.
In conclusion I say that we would like to see the federal Government take real initiatives on this. It should give a higher priority to the signing of these federal-provincial agreements. We want to see a higher priority on programs to develop non-chemical control of disease or insects and pests. There has been much more research conducted in this area. Canadians are afraid of the sprays which are still being used. Those fears are justified. New Brunswick is now hooked on the whole business of spraying. When I asked the Minister about this matter this morning, he was not able to provide any specifics. He had many statistics on other programs but was unable to give any on this particular program. That suggested to me that the whole business of non-chemical ways of controlling insects and pests is really incidental and peripheral to his other concerns. As Minister of the Environment and as Minister responsible for the forest industry, this is one area in which the two concerns should come together. I would like to see it receive a higher priority in the Ministry.
Finally, I would like to see some federal Government help in the area of community co-operative initiatives for forestry. If the people of Honeymoon Bay or Mesachie Lake had controlled their forest areas, would they have allowed them to become depleted in a matter of 30 years or 40 years so that they are now ghost towns? I believe the people in the community can plan for a wise and rational use of forestry resources in their area. Would the people of Chemainus have allowed their mill to become run down so that they could invest money in Alabama as MacMillan Bloedel did, or would they maintain a modern, up to date mill which would still be running today if they were involved in the management of it?
I would like to see some federal Government money being put into community co-operatives in the whole business of forestry. Finally, we want some kind of industrial strategy which will provide the maximum number of jobs per tree. We should be manufacturing forestry equipment in Canada. There should be no export of raw logs. In conclusion, we want to see a higher priority on Canada's number one industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? Debate.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in a debate on our resources. For the usual reasons, when we get on to this subject, there is in all Parties a tendency to speak constructively; we instinctively realize that we are a developing nation when we are a resource nation. Also we realize that some day
we will move into a more sophisticated match between our resources and our industrial value-added industries.
My remarks today will be on matters which 1 do not think have been covered by other speakers. I will refer mainly to perhaps one of the most hard-pressed industries in the Canadian resource field. Of course, I am referring to mining. We have had good mining tax laws in the country for most of our mining history. This is why Canadians set an example for the whole world on how to develop mines at minimum cost and maximum productivity. Of course, we have lost this for several reasons.
Let me go back. Until 1971, through the federal Government three-year tax holiday on capital intensified mines, which included all of them, our mining industry was the most efficient and best in the world. Under the regime of the 50-year period, our mining industry prospered. Along came the Carter Commission. It recommended that all risks should be treated equally and that the tax incentives that had been given to the mining industry be removed.
Before the federal Government moved, the provincial Governments took advantage of the rising prices of mining products in the world markets. They doubled, tripled and in some cases quadrupled their tax levels. The federal Government grew very angry with this and under the Turner budget of 1974 made all provincial taxes and royalties non-deductible. This meant that in effect there was double taxation on the mines of Canada. It hit all mines desperately hard, but none so hard as the low-grade mines of British Columbia. This unfortunate doubling and tripling of the tax rate at the provincial level and the making of the provincial taxes non-deductible has brought our mining industry, in so far as the base metal industries and low quality minerals are concerned, to a dead halt.
Since that time, two Provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, have reduced their taxes somewhat. However, the whole discussion of getting this back to normal broke down with the introduction of the national energy policy, which interfered from 1974 on under the Petroleum Administration Act and later the national energy policy, in the right of the Provinces to own these resources and to have full advantage of them for provincial purposes.
All this is history. When this matter was raised in the House in 1973 and 1974, the Minister of the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, and the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. John Turner, agreed with the quantitative analysis that I presented to the House. As a result of that, they set up a committee, supported by all the Provinces, centred at Queen's University. That report came down two years ago. I have never heard a single Member on the Government side mention that report. They know about it and I know the Minister knew about it.
It struck me as passing strange for two responsible Ministers on the Government side to admit that there was no future for the mining industry and then set up a committee to look into
November 21, 1983

it, and you can get a copy of the report in the library, entitled "The Effects of Taxation on Base Metal Mining in Canada" supported financially by the two main levels of Government.
The report says in effect that there will never be another mine developed in Canada as long as the present tax regime exists. This document was supported financially by the Government, yet no one has raised this as a subject of discussion. Until we read the reports presented to this Parliament and prepare policies to meet them, all the rhetoric in this House is useless. We must read, study and do something about it. What I want to do today is to outline three or four points that should be in the policy of any Government. 1 certainly know they will be in the policy of the new Conservative Government after next year.
Let me say at the outset that, unknown to most Members of the House, something has been done in the last two or three years. 1 refer in particular to the 1981 budget of the present Government. It brought in a whole series of measures in the so-called MacEachen budget that roused this country to furious opposition. It led to the promotion of the Minister to higher places. It led to a complete demoralization of almost every aspect of our industrial set-up. In that uproar we forgot that hidden in all these proposals was one that brought some justice to the mining industry. If I may use general words, it allowed to those who invested in the mining industry, the junior mines, the same right of flow-through of shares that corporations have always had in relation to the oil and gas industry. The former Minister responsible for Mines, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola), did make one speech on it and did send out a press release. If I had been a supporter of resources on the Government side, I would have trumpeted that policy all across the country. It has been in effect for over two years and, outside of that one case, I know of no other.
The brokerage firms have not taken advantage of this and have not made it known to their customers. This is where a person can invest in a mining company directly into the Treasury, get a tax deduction for his investment and get the right to shares. When he pays his taxes, he pays them on the basis of the capital gains on the shares that he purchased. This is one good step.
In 1983, the same Government gave recognition to depletion which in effect equalled what you got in oil and gas, and what was available to corporations is now available to individuals. I could add that that research is now available to industry, but I have never seen that in a clear press statement. Maybe I missed it, but I know it is available.
What then are my proposals? First, I go back to the basic beginning of all mining discoveries, the old-fashioned prospector. He still has the track record of being the most successful of any type of operation, including all the high technology and electronic techniques for finding mines. Of all the biologists and the rest of them, he still has the best track record. The prospectors used a canoe or jeep. They now use helicopters.
If the prospector found a successful mine, we have always awarded him by giving him a $50,000 deduction off his five,
Supply
ten, twenty or thirty years work. With the high cost of helicopters, the risks and one thing and another, we have to improve that deduction. I am not the final authority on what it is worth, but I would certainly suggest between $250,000 and $500,000 for that man who spent years of his life hunting, either on foot or by helicopter, for those things that can only be found by a hands-on operation.
Second, I have divided this investment proposal into several parts: a) the flow-through pattern that I have enunciated should apply to any form of mining and any form of energy production. If you think that through, you see that all of a sudden these heavy oils of Alberta and Saskatchewan become economic. All these oil sands projects which are stalled in northern Alberta and which can only be put forward by tremendous sums of money advanced by Governments' would become roughly economic. You are drawing equity in the form of a 100 per cent deduction which is prepared to wait for five, ten or fifteen years for any return. It cuts out the heavy front-end loading charges. We must also consider all the geothermal energy that exists in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and a little bit in Manitoba. All through that whole area that runs from Michigan to almost Hamilton, through the Gaspe area and the Cumberland Basin there are hot water and hot rocks underneath the ground. We have so much fun whenever there is an earthquake or a volcano erupts. They can be making money for us. Let us milk that hot water, harvest it and put it to use.
I would like to suggest, in quantitative figures, that on the basis of the information from scientists in Ottawa who have done a tremendous amount of work on this subject and from information from the oil and gas industry mainly, there is now 360 times more Btu's of energy in the hot water underneath the Prairies than there is in all of the gas we will ever discover. When we realize that we have already located, on a potential basis, some 440 trillion Btu's of gas, we can then multiply that huge figure by 360, which gives us the amount of Btu's available through geothermal energy. The advantage of hot water energy is that it is renewable. You can use it and then send it back down to get reheated again.
In effect, this would mean that we would offer tax incentives not only to oil and gas and to mines, although the people who handle the shares of those mining companies have not told the people about it, but would offer them to all of these other forms of energy including heavy oils, oil sands, geothermal energy, low grade energy, energy from the ground, the air, and particularly from the waste. I do not want to take any more time discussing that last item because it is ten times more powerful than all of the others.
The second proposal under the investment approach is to do something that has become a sickness throughout North America for hundreds of years. The concept of financing that Governments have is that the minute one starts to develop a resource, the Government immediately loads on him all of the charges possible. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in western

November 21, 1983
Supply
Canada, as in Texas, when one wants to look at a place to explore, the Government charges a huge fee? One must bid simply to get into the poker game. If you went to a poker game where they charged you $50,000 to sit down, Mr. Speaker, you would not join many poker games. That is why only 400 companies, with huge backlogs of financing and self-earned earnings, are able to afford that poker game.
I could go on and list all of the things that have been done in the House over the last 25 years. I shall suggest a policy that I originally proposed in 1957. That proposal was accepted by all of the oil companies, both American and Canadian, in 1961. It was finally accepted in the House of Commons by the present Government in 1976 under the Hon. Judd Buchanan. That proposal is to go back to the commonsense way of financing for these great risk enterprises in which the biggest cost is interest on the money that must be borrowed in order to go forward with these enterprises and to give to these capital intensive enterprises with their high interest load a contractual arrangement that was put forward in the Liberal Government's regulations of 1976. That was accepted by all Parties in the House, but instead of that, we now have the so-called National Energy Program of 1977.
The contractual arrangement that I refer to has been discussed in the House. It has been discussed in committees of the House. The Hon. Don Macdonald, in committee, accepted the proposal. When I asked him what he thought would be a fair break after all of the debts were paid off, he gave me some figures, and I am willing to accept those figures.
The Hon. John Turner, standing up in the House, said that my figures were correct but that, unfortunately, businesses did not operate that way because most of the business in Canada, not in the mining sector but in the oil and gas sector particularly, follow a financial practice that has been copied from the Americans. The Americans have never been able to get rid of that type of financing.
When the great oil play started in the North Sea, the British Government accepted this type of regulation very quickly, as did Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands. Today, with all of the debts paid back, the British Government receives nearly 50 per cent of the gross value of the oil and gas from that field. The companies are well rewarded with about 30 per cent which pays all of their costs. They get all of their money back and they get an amount of money in addition that gives them a 25 per cent profit on all of the money that was invested and has now been returned. As well, Venezuela has copied that system in part.
I suggest that we return to the fundamental way of handling these problems, which is to return to common sense financing. If we look at the costs of the oil industry and the gas industry in western Canada from 1922 until 1957, we see that 75 per cent of those costs were interest payments. I do not have the figures from the last 30 years, but I am sure they would be as high. When one spends 75 per cent of one's costs on interest, one goes broke. This happened to all of our corporations in 1982. If one looks at the figures, approximately 70 per cent of the costs to all big corporations in Canada was interest payments. That is why so many corporations went down the tubes.
Without stressing that point any longer, the final point I make is that we must consider the infrastructure in an isolated mining area. 1 would simply apply the same rules as are applied to a mining company or an oil and gas company to the infrastructure costs so that the people who live in those areas may share in the investment and the returns as these costs are part of the total costs. The last point I have to make, which I will not discuss, is simply what we must do in the international market.
1 would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that the House, in this moment of constructive discussion of resource policy, will give honest consideration to moving immediately toward some form of mining tax improvement to put the mining industry back in the position it was in some ten years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will pursue the matter of whether or not there are questions and answers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I deal now with the adjournment motion. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-National Security- Expulsion of Soviet embassy official, (b) Staffing of Soviet Embassy; the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Trade-United States potato import hearings- Request for Canadian representation; the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Finance-Capital gains tax amendments, (b) Treatment of stock purchasers, (c) Application of tax to speculators.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Oberle:
That this House regards the Government's failure to take action to encourage the development of Canada's resource industries and ensure their competitiveness in world markets as a betrayal of all Canadians whose standard of living depends upon the resource sector of Canada's economy and calls upon the
November 21, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Government to bring an end to the nationalization of Canadian resource industries which has discouraged investment in Canada; introduce tax incentives to restore competitive advantage and stimulate resource production and further processing in Canada; initiate a programme of incentives for research and development, and incentives for marketing activities of Canadian industries.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 1982, I asked the then Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in light of the expulsion from Canada of a certain Mikhail Abramov, Soviet diplomat, for unlawfully attempting to obtain high technology materials, it would not then appear appropriate to reduce the size of the Soviet diplomatic mission in Canada and thereby reduce the risk of further spying by the Soviet Union in our country. The Minister's reply was typically evasive and might well have been appropriate for another question. However, it certainly was in no way relevant to the question which 1 had asked.
Permit me to review the conduct of Soviets in our country in recent years and to tie in the significance of that question which I asked 18 months ago to circumstances as they apply in Canada today. The House will recall that in 1945, at the conclusion of the Second World War, a certain Igor Gouzenko defected to Canada and disclosed the existence of a Soviet espionage ring operated by the Soviet Union in our country, the act of a hardly friendly former ally. In 1978, 13 Soviet diplomats were expelled from our country for spying. In 1980, three staff members of the Soviet embassy were expelled for endeavouring to obtain classified materials. In 1982, Mikhail Abramov, the Soviet agent to whom I referred on April 2, was expelled, and then, more recently, on September 12 of 1983, two further Soviet agents were expelled for endeavouring once again to purchase high technology materials contrary to the laws of our country.
The most recent expulsions in September proved the point which I had endeavoured to make in April of 1982. The Soviets have absolutely nothing to lose in unleashing upon our nation their professional KGB agents to conduct the activities for which they are well trained. There appears to be, certainly in the minds of most reasonable Canadians, a need for some
Adjournment Debate
kind of penalty which could be imposed upon a Government which specifically instructs its agents to break the laws of Canada. In the event that we are serious about curtailing the activities of the Soviet Union, and its agents in spying and conducting espionage activities or otherwise conducting themselves in an illegal fashion, principally endeavouring to obtain information which is otherwise unavailable to them, it is incumbent upon this Government to establish some stringent guidelines which would guide the Soviet Government in the conduct of its affairs and the affairs of its agents while in Canada.
On a number of occasions I have mentioned those specific remedial actions which should be taken. On one occasion 1 suggested it would be appropriate to advise the Soviet Union that, in the event it persisted in instructing its agents to behave illegally in this country, its staff should be reduced by one half. Its staff, of course, being those who are associated with both its embassy here in Ottawa and its consulate mission in Montreal.
There is little likelihood that my recommendation will be adopted by this Government. The incident in 1978 probably gives rise to the best kind of response which we could expect from the Government of the current Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he said, after being confronted with the knowledge of the activities of the 13 Soviet agents, that their activities would naturally be disturbing to the friendship between our two countries. I should have thought that his reaction, rather than being one of amazement, would have been one of anger, coupled with a dedication to the adoption of policies which would preclude that kind of conduct from occurring again. Yet the statement of the Prime Minister in 1978 was to the effect that he well expected that kind of activity to continue in the future. Of course, he has done nothing to discourage the Soviet Union from conducting illegal activities in our country since that date.
As a result of a question which 1 placed on the Order Paper, the House now knows that there are 44 Canadian citizens on the embassy staff of our country in Moscow. There are 45 Soviet citizens on the staff of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa and 16 Soviet citizens who work at the consulate in Montreal. Very clearly, as an initial step, Mr. Speaker, the 17 excessive Soviet representatives in this country should be eliminated in terms of establishing some parity between Canadian representation in the Soviet Union and Soviet representation in this country. I would urge the Government, in the interests of precluding the kind of activity which we find reprehensible, to take some steps to reduce the staff of the Soviet embassy in our country as a penalty for future espionage activities in Canada.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question and his subsequent comments tonight are typically extreme. He ignores the fact that the vast amount of daily business between the two countries is profitable and necessary for both sides.

November 21, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Instead, he zeros in on extreme behaviour and therefore loses a chance to stress those positive things which help to normalize relations between the East and the West.
In the past two years Canada has declared three Soviet officials personae non gratae because they were conducting themselves in a manner unacceptable to this country. In April, 1982, on the basis of evidence at its disposal, the Government took the decision to expel one official, Mikhail Abramov. In September, 1983, after assessing the information available very carefully, the Government asked Victor Tselekovskiy to leave Canada and prohibited a second official, Anatolity Solousov, who was out of the country on holiday, from returning. The Government has no wish to comment on the alleged activities of other officials in the Soviet embassy. Of course, we encourage greater Government to Government dialogue through official contact. In that sense, Soviet diplomats are representatives of an important and powerful country and their work is essential. The record clearly shows however, that we have not hesitated to act promptly and resolutely when Canadian security interests are threatened by the conduct of officials who behave in an inappropriate manner.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the disruptive effect on the Soviets of these expulsions. The Government has pointed out strongly to the Soviet embassy that activities such as those for which these three officials were expelled will not be tolerated, nor will we hesitate to take appropriate action to ensure that Canadian interests and security are protected. At the same time we have no intention of interfering with the normal working and commercial activities between the two countries, and we have no intention of interfering with opportunities to open avenues of dialogue between the two countries.


TRADE-UNITED STATES POTATO IMPORT HEARINGS-REQUEST FOR CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have asked questions in this House with respect to the recent ruling of the U.S. Department of Commerce that there should be a duty surcharge imposed on the export of Canadian potatoes to that market. I want to give you some background on the trade between Canada and the U.S., and some figures to back it up. I asked for some documentation on this subject matter from the Library of Parliament, and they gave it to me with respect to tomatoes, onions, carrots, cabbage and many other items. In their closing paragraph they say that Canada's horticultural trade is an important component of Canada's agricultural exports. Horticultural producers can be found in virtually every part of Canada. Canada imports substantially more horticultural products than it exports, primarily from the U.S. Canada also represents a major market for U.S. horticultural products.
Let us take a look at how important our market is to the U.S. Without going into the detail about cabbages, carrots, etc., I want to point out that in Canadian imports of fruit and nuts, the U.S. generates a net balance of trade of $714 million. To broaden that a little further and include vegetables along with the fruit and nuts, again the U.S. generates a trade
surplus with Canada of $382 million for a total of well over $1 billion in trade surplus in fruits, nuts and vegetables.
Our trade with the U.S., particularly as it relates to potatoes, is somewhat minuscule on a relative basis. For instance, between the years 1971 and 1981, which is as far as Statistics Canada has prepared these figures, the import of potatoes from the U.S. fluctuated from a low of 7.1 per cent of Canada's consumption in 1971, to a high of 17.2 per cent in 1977.
In the reverse trade, on a relative basis again, we supplied to the United States a low of 0.2 per cent to a high of 1.3 per cent of their requirement for potatoes in 1982. Under those terms and conditions, who is hurting whom? If they supply to Canada up to 17.2 per cent of our requirement and a low of 7.1 per cent while we reach in one year only an export which is equivalent to 1.3 per cent of their requirement, who is damaging whom? Yet on that basis it has been decreed in the rulings to date that there should be a surcharge of duty on potatoes exported to the United States from eastern Canada. This raises an element of very serious concerns if, in a field in which there is over $1 billion of U.S. trade surplus, we begin to find ourselves in difficulty with individual items which constitute that billion. It does not bode very much good for us. I submit that we should have taken a very serious look at the structure at a much earlier stage.
The probable responder tonight is from Ontario. I want to say to that gentleman from Ontario, through you, Mr. Speaker, that every single potato grower east of the most westerly Ontario destination, North Bay, and 1 think it would be proper to say east of Thunder Bay, will receive a lower price for his product if we do not successfully either fight or negotiate our way out of the surcharge on potatoes. Mr. Speaker, if those potatoes do not leave the country and go down to the natural market on the East Coast, they then must find a market somewhere east of Thunder Bay. That has a very major consequence on the return of potato growers throughout all of eastern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the market and the price for potatoes is a continental price. I hope that our Government officials will extend that knowledge to the American officials. If the total continental supply, that is those potatoes grown in Canada and the United States, exceeds what is a reasonable consumptive capacity of the consumers of this continent, we will in fact get a low price. This will not only apply along the East Coast and in the so-called northeast region which has applied for surcharge of duty, but in virtually all of the North American continent with a few isolated situations which are protected by geography against transportation costs and therefore against price fluctuations as they relate to supply. Those will only be isolated instances. It is, therefore, very pertinent that the Government of Canada should make the strongest possible representations to the Government of the United States before the final answer from the United States Department of Commerce is passed down on December 19.
November 21, 1983

In view of the major resources of agricultural organizations, 1 want to make an appeal now to all Members on the Government side that the Horticulture Council be given the sincerest possible congratulations for the way it has defended Canada's needs in this industry. Those congratulations should be extended to potato organizations and the Governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and there should be a special grant to the Canadian Horticulture Council which has exhausted its reserves and will end up seriously in debt in the protection of trade for Canada as a whole. I believe this should be the responsibility of the federal Treasury from some Department, under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
I hope that I will not be answered with a prepared text but in a businesslike discussion on the subject matter of the question and the remarks 1 have made tonight.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has pointed out that I come from Ontario, and of course he comes from New Brunswick. He could have gone on to say that 1 am a Member of the Government and he is a Member of the Opposition. Despite those differences, I would like to extend my personal congratulations to him for the concern he has shown over this issue and the activity he has undertaken. He has stated his case well. I understand that he personally has travelled to Washington-


Fred Alward McCain: Only to Portland.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: He has travelled to Portland, he says, and 1 appreciate the chance now to give him an updated report on the Government's activities.
Ministers have, on a number of occasions, expressed to their American counterparts the Government's concerns about continuing American actions aimed at limiting potato imports from the maritime Provinces and about the consequences for Canada of the current anti-dumping investigation.
The United States Commerce Department issued an affirmative anti-dumping determination of November 4 which cited higher anti-dumping margins than those in the Department's preliminary determination of July 26. The interdepartmental team that has been working on this case for Canada since its conception, met with the Canadian Horticultural Council and with the New Brunswick, and P.E.I. Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Agriculture. We expressed our collective concern over the final anti-dumping determination and agreed that we now need to focus our energies on the injury case.
The Government sent a team comprising officials of the Departments of External Affairs, Agriculture and Finance to the U.S. International Trade Commission's injury hearing in Portland, Maine, on November 18. Indeed, as 1 mentioned, the Hon. Member himself also attended the hearing. The reports on this important hearing are encouraging. Mr. Ince, our Washington counsel, made a strong and persuasive interven-
Adjournment Debate
tion. The Government remains convinced that a good case will continue to be made that Canadian exports of the type of potato under investigation are not injuring the U.S.A. industry. The U.S. Department of Commerce must make a final determination of injury by December 19. If its decision is negative, the investigation will be terminated.
May 1 again compliment the Hon. Member for his obvious concern for his constituents and for the industry generally.


FINANCE-CAPITAL GAINS TAX AMENDMENTS. (B) TREATMENT OF STOCK PURCHASERS. (C) APPLICATION OF TAX TO SPECULATORS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on October 3 last, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tabled in the House detailed ways and means motions with respect to the indexed investment security plan. You will recall that I raised this matter in the House on a number of occasions. I was rather disturbed by the text of the ways and means motion which was tabled. That is why I raised the matter in the House with the Minister on October 6.
Briefly, the indexed investment security plan is one in which a person decides to make his stockmarket investment behind a plan administered by his broker. The capital gains tax is only paid on the actual real capital gain, inflation aside. Losses are deductible on a formula in the plan.
It is a detailed ways and means motion that explictly sets out for the House the terms of the proposed change to the Income Tax Act. The problem is that we are not really dealing with investments in the way the ways and means motions sets out the case. We are dealing with such things as stock options. Imagine a put or a call or an option agreement being treated somehow as an investment? On a matter of that nature, there is no investment whatsoever. What a person does is to pay a fee or an option price to take an option on some stock. If the stock goes up in value, a profit is made. If it goes down, there is a put, you can also make a profit. You are speculating on the market.
Until now that has always been deemed as an adventure in the nature of trade. It is a business activity. It has nothing to do with investment at all. Not one nickel goes into the till of the company. Not one nickel is put up to create jobs in Canada. Not one nickel is put up to improve the investment picture, the capital of a corporation in the country. It is merely a method whereby this Government enables those people who are speculators in the market to escape not only income tax on their trading activities, but capital gains tax as well, except to the extent that there is a real gain in terms of a real gain after inflation being taken into account.
It is abominable that under the guise of trying to increase equity investment as set out by the Minister, the Minister should allow this class of activity to be buried under the indexed investment security plan.

November 21, 1983
Adjournment Debate
If we really wanted to get to the problem of increasing equity investment, what we would do is to get rid of capital gains completely. Capital gains have not turned out to be a great source of federal revenue. In 1979, the total revenue derived by both the Provinces and the federal Government was but $650 million. If you add some indexing and add some possibilities to that, perhaps there is a billion dollars of revenue in it. But the damage to the economy is so much greater that we would be far better off as a nation to get rid of capital gains tax completely. This proposal gets rid of capital gains tax for those people who are able to trade in listed investments on the market. It is a practical matter. They will pay tax on their real gains but they will be able to write off all of their losses. It is only a tax on real gains and then only at capital gains tax rates. Probably, in fact, after it is all washed out, some people will pay tax, a lot of people will have losses, and the net result will be that the Government will not get any revenue. Maybe it is equitable that some should pay and some should not. But the real purpose of an Income Tax Act is to raise revenue. This amendment does not.
You are indicating to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that this is no way to increase equity investment in Canada. What we ought to do is to treat all investment as being free of tax, free of capital gains tax. What we ought to do is to put some sizzle into the market. What we ought to do is to encourage people to invest. What we ought to do is to tax those who are just traders. This amendment lets the traders off the hook and puts the ordinary real investor on the hook for an unfair capital gains tax.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member often rises in this House to attack the existence of capital gains tax. We have had lively debates on this topic in the past. Tonight he has announced a new wrinkle in the theory, namely, that a billion dollars is not significant revenue for the Government. I think that is an important policy statement from the Progressive Conservative Party and it is one that I am sure we will hear more of in the future. But I ask the Hon. Member, what about the people who have to bankroll his taxation theories? What
about the people who have to pay for all the guys who get a free ride under his theory? Of course these are the people who have payroll income but no capital gains income. These are the people who work in factories and teach in schools. These are the people who have their own small stores or small businesses which pay them a salary but no real capital gain. The Hon. Member is recommending that these people finance the high rollers he is supposedly attacking.
Turning to the indexed security investment plan, individuals who speculate or deal with shares, options or other properties as a business venture are taxed on the profit generated from their activities at regular business tax rates, not at the lower capital gains rates. Those people pay the full rates. Speculators do not receive the benefits that IS IP offers to "true" investors.
The option trading which the Hon. Member attacked this evening is an integral part of Canadian equity markets. Our position in the ISIP is something which was recommended and supported by the Investment Dealers Association and the Toronto Stock Exchange. ISIP, along with other measures announced in the April 19 budget, are positive steps in encouraging new equity investment in Canadian corporations. I repeat, just in case my colleague across the way does not understand my position on this, that the capital gains tax is a fair tax. It is a productive tax and it is one that treats income equitably for all Canadians. It does not create a special class of income or a special category of people who get a free ride from other taxpayers. The tax policy must treat all income fairly. The capital gains tax is one part of the entire spectrum of tax which avoids unfairness and gives the Government satisfactory revenues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock. May I extend best wishes to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn); have a good evening.
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 22, 1983