1983-05-20

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I spoke to a class of bright, young students at Henry Street High School in Whitby. 1 was impressed with their intelligence, and disturbed by their anger, for these students, Mr. Speaker, were very angry. Imagine facing a future where there are no jobs, a future where the old rules do not apply.
I want to get some answers to the students' questions. What is the Goverment going to do about youth unemployment? We all know that it will be over 50 per cent this summer. Yet, when the Opposition asks serious questions of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), he will only recite a list of short-term programs instead of long-term solutions. Mr. Speaker, the statistics for youth unemployment prove that these programs are not effective, and the human factor is even more telling.
This is a letter I received from one of my constituents:
I am writing to you and I need assistance. I have a problem. I cannot get a job.
I have been unemployed for over a year. 1 have a bookkeeping certificate and am now taking an accounting course through the Ministry of Education. I am also on the NEED program through Manpower. Nothing. Please is there anything you can do?
The letter was signed "Desperate".
It is time to bring together a task force, with representation from labour, industry, small business and the Provinces, to examine the transition from the post-industrial to the technological era.
The next time I speak to a class of students who are about to start their working lives, I hope the Government will have some answers for them.


EDUCATION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible and tragic that in this day and age, in this era of space travel and electronic wizardry, one out of four people across the Province of Ontario cannot read a simple newspaper article.
Experts speaking recently for the Movement for Canadian Literacy believe that up to 70 per cent of Canadians read so poorly they cannot understand information brochures sent in the mail by various levels of Government. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the problem may be more acute now than ever. The advent of the electronic media has made it easier than ever before to exist from day to day without reading. Use of the telephone saves many poor readers from having to use the rudimentary skills they may have.
The connection between illiteracy and unemployment has been established by many experts in the field of literacy. Illiterate people have difficulty reading newspaper ads for jobs, and health and safety notices at the worksite. Since grade ten, and sometimes grade 12, is required for many technical retraining programs, illiterate adults are denied even this opportunity to improve their lot in life.
Given the seriousness of this situation, perhaps the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) would consider using some of the money allocated to his Department through the Special Recovery Program to initiate literacy programs across the country.
As well, the Minister is aware of organizations in the voluntary sector which are devoted to helping out illiterate Canadians. I would ask him on behalf of these organizations to make sure that any tax regulations affecting the volunteer workers and their organizations are fair and geared to their best interests.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased with the news that the Bill proposing amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act has been tabled. The proposed changes would confirm the authority of the Employment and Immigration Commission to establish regulatory provisions concerning fishermen's benefits. These provisions differ from those regulating ordinary benefits in order to allow for the specific needs of this particular group. If we authorize the Commission to establish special regulatory provisions for fishermen's benefits, it would also be possible for the Commission to implement the recommendations contained in the Kirby
25618

May 20, 1983
Task Force Report, especially the suggestion that benefits paid to fishermen who have accumulated fifteen weeks of employment or more should be based on the earnings of their ten best weeks of fishing.
I am therefore asking for the co-operation of Members of all parties in this Elouse so that we can adopt this Bill before June 4, which will be in the interests of all fishermen in Eastern Canada, and especially those in the Gaspe.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, through you, to call to the attention of the House an important matter related to the Canadian atomic veterans. The Government knows that during the 1950s and 1960s approximately 300 members of the Canadian Armed Forces participated in a nuclear defence group, and a number of fighter pilots were exposed to nuclear radiation in the course of their duties. Exposure sites included atomic bomb tests at Nevada, and Maralinga in Australia.
It is our contention that some years ago the Department of National Defence made a commitment to protect those individuals exposed to radiation in the course of their duties. That protection had not been forthcoming. The Government has largely turned its back on those veterans today.
In the United States, however, the United States Government has now acknowledged the potential difficulties of the exposure to radiation of its servicemen in the bomb tests in Nevada, and has agreed to provide free medical services to all those veterans. This is a major step forward in the process of recognition of the dangers of exposure to nuclear radiation.
With other Members of the House I suggest it is time the federal Government recognized its obligations and fulfilled its commitment to the Canadian atomic veterans. The Government should immediately issue a statement that all Canadian veterans who participated in the nuclear defence group, all those fighter pilots who were exposed in high altitude flights to atomic bomb tests in other countries, should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, police brutality in Poland resulted in the death of a 19-year old student, Grzeyorz Przemyk, and a new martyr for the cause of opposition to martial law in Poland was born.
Twenty thousand mourners, in the largest peaceful demonstration held in Warsaw since the imposition of martial law, heard read the Lech Walesa telegram, "Every death is painful but this one is especially brutal-it will not be forgotten." The Solidarity movement was a peaceful movement by masses of Polish people simply wanting a little greater freedom of individual expression. Now, with the alleged suspension of martial law, civil, human and workers' rights continue to be brutally trampled upon. The Gdansk Accords are still being completely and flagrantly violated. In short, all of the major advances of Solidarity over its 16 months of existence have been rolled back.
The free peoples of the world must not allow the alleged suspension of martial law to serve as a political ploy to convince the world that, for a people who have enjoyed one thousand years of Christianity, life for them has returned to normal. We must all protest in the strongest terms possible the continued grievous violations of basic civil and workers' rights in Poland.



Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, major peace initiatives in Central America are currently being promoted by Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, referred to as the "Contadora Group". These countries are discussing ways and means to bring about a reduction of violence and tension in Central America and an eventual peaceful settlement.
In a communique dated May 11, 1983, the Government of Canada indicated support for the work of the Contadora Group. It considers this work as an important step in the process of reconciliation and peaceful settlement. It has been the view of the Government of Canada that the resolution of difficulties in Central America requires a process of discussion and dialogue between the various Governments concerned.
The Government of Canada is prepared to do whatever it can to facilitate and encourage this process if the countries directly concerned feel that Canada can play a useful, positive, and effective role. Canada has protested the waves of violence in those countries. It has offered its good offices to provide a site in Canada, or abroad at a Canadian embassy, for negotiations. Canada supports the right of each country to enjoy genuine independence, non-alignment, and stability, without threat of outside interference. It is a concern that, to date, countries directly involved in facilitating and encouraging dialogue and discussion have not availed themselves of this genuine offer. Nevertheless, I feel that it is important that Canada keep its lines of communication open to these directly concerned nations in the event that its help is requested.
May 20, 1983


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I associate this statement with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). There has been much talk recently, in the media and in legislatures across the land, about the Holocaust and the attempted extermination of a race more than 40 years ago. Everyone keeps saying that such a human tragedy must never happen again. However, a 1980s' version of the holocaust is happening again. The Government of Iran is determined to wipe out that country's largest religious minority, the Baha'is. The hateful Ayatollah Khomeini regime is quietly, but systematically, executing hundreds of people every year. The most recent death camp exercise has claimed at least 200 lives.
This continuing horror story was graphically brought to the doorstep of my constituency office in Dundas, Ontario, a few days ago. A delegation from the Baha'i Assembly of Dundas included a lovely young lady, Dr. Feri Jabbari, who had just lost her distinguished father before an Iranian firing squad. The Baha'i delegation's message was twofold: first, to bring about greater public awareness of the campaign of terror being visited upon Iran's largest religious minority, and second, to thank the Parliament of Canada for being among the first of the world's democratic nations to pass a unanimous resolution expressing alarm at what is happening to the Baha'is in Iran.
I only wish, Mr. Speaker, that the international community could do more than just pass formal resolutions about the persecution of the Baha'is. Another holocaust is in the making, and no one seems able or willing to stop it.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) earlier this week with regard to the allocation of the rail car orders was most heartless and did not even begin to recognize the unemployment which has almost become structural in National Steel Car. There has been hardly anyone working there over the course of the last year. There is a sufficient amount of work which needs to be done and which could be done by those employees and by the employees of the other plants across the country. There is the necessity to repair the existing rolling stock, work which is not currently being undertaken, and should be undertaken.
The Minister on many occasions has expressed his concern for rail safety. This would be an ideal time both to meet his commitment to rail safety and to provide much needed employment in many centres in every part of the country.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, it is alleged in the newspapers that yesterday officials of the Anti-Combines Investigation Branch raided the offices of Canadian National Shipping in Montreal, together with the offices of CAST North America Container Lines, and Sofati Container Lines. My question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asks whether in fact these raids by his officials, as alleged, did in fact take place and, if so, can the Minister indicate if the underlying cause for this investigation is the reason behind the long, long delay in the public inquiry with respect to the relationship between Canadian National Railways and CAST North America Container Lines?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, although I can confirm that an inquiry is under way, I cannot confirm who has been investigated. Normally, under current practice, we do not confirm or deny that a combines investigation is taking place except when those who are the subject of the activity go to the press and make it public. Then it is the people concerned who are making it public and it is difficult to deny it.
I agree that an investigation is taking place, but I want to warn the Hon. Member not to draw any conclusions. Because a particular company's premises have been searched does not necessarily means that this company is under suspicion.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the caution issued, to me, but where price cutting is going on in the North Altan-tic and a major Crown corporation in this country is involved, I think we have some responsibility to pursue the matter.


EFFECT ON COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport, who will be fully aware that twice in recent days the Standing Committee on Transport has had to delay or postpone hearings with respect to the annual reports of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. I would ask the Minister whether or not, in his judgment I suppose, the actions which took place yesterday in Montreal will preclude the Standing Committee on Transport from pursuing its investigation of Canadian National's annual report and the relationship between Canadian National Railways and CAST North America?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to quarrel with the Hon.

May 20, 1983
Oral Questions
Member's preamble to his question. It is not for him to investigate combines matters. Parliament has passed a law and has vested this authority in the Director of the Combines Investigation Branch. The Director is doing his job, he is performing under the responsibility given to him by an Act of Parliament and I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that he does not at all need the help of the Hon. Member to do his job.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's arrogance does not really cut an awful lot of ice with me. The fact of the matter is that in the last four or five months at least four or five major Crown corporations have landed in hot water.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
J. Michael Forrestall: May I direct a brief question to the Prime Minister and ask him if, in the continuing absence of the Government's Bill on Crown investment, the CDIC measure, he has considered taking any interim action? We have Air Canada in some trouble, Cana-dair facing some difficulties, and the Canada Dairy Commission in some trouble. Now we have Canadian National Railways under investigation. Has the Prime Minister considered any interim or any specific action he might take or might suggest to this House so the Government would regain some control or seem to have control over these massive giants in our system?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is before the House a Bill dealing with government control of Crown corporations. We would appreciate it from the Hon. Member if he could put a little pressure on his House Leader to ensure that we can in fact deal with these Crown corporations in a way which, as the Hon. Member says, is controlled, that is, as far as the law is concerned.
Insofar as the allegations made by the Hon. Member are concerned, I am not aware of any investigation into CNR. 1 am not quite sure what the Hon. Member is alluding to when he speaks of the Canadian Dairy Commission. However, as I said, there is a remedy before the House, and we would urge the Hon. Member to co-operate in getting it implemented.


Mr. Beatty:: If there is no problem, why do you need the remedy?


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. In view of
the muzzling of the Transport Committee which occurred yesterday and which makes it extremely unlikely that witnesses for Air Canada will be appearing before the Committee this session, and in view of the answer of the Prime Minister yesterday to my supplementary question when he said that I was "completely wrong", I would like to ask him which of the following facts are wrong: that the Chairman of Air Canada is his friend; that the Prime Minister invited Mr. Amyot to be Chairman of Air Canada; that the Prime Minister travelled by helicopter to make that invitation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe you would wonder whether I could comment on what is called a muzzling of a Committee yesterday. I understand that a majority of the Committee reached a decision. As the Hon. Member calls that muzzling, perhaps it is another indication that he disagrees with the democratic process.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can repeat that the statement that the Hon. Member made yesterday or the day before was dead wrong and came from a prejudiced mind.


REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN BE GIVEN LEAVE OF ABSENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my grade six teacher told me years ago that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you". I will not really be detracted by the petulance of the Prime Minister in terms of prejudice. However, I will return to my supplementary question yesterday, not in terms of facts, but, rather, to talk about prejudice.
Does the Prime Minister not think that there is potentially some prejudice to continue to allow the Chairman of one of our largest Crown corporations to carry on duties for that Crown corporation when, in effect, the policeman on the beat takes a leave of absence when there is a criminal investigation of his conduct? Surely this must be causing some stress and strain to the board of directors, let alone adversely affecting the operation of the airline, especially when this matter could go on for months and we have had no evidence whatsoever of when it could be concluded. Surely the same standards should apply with no admission-I appreciate the difficulties-but with no suggestion of implication, but the fact of the ethics-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should ask his question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am simply asking whether the Prime Minister does not think the same standards should apply to the Chairman of a Crown corporation under criminal investigation as to a policeman on the beat.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I always understood that under the rule of law in Canada there is a presumption of innocence on the part of a person. I have always acted in that way. As far as the Hon. Member is
May 20, 1983

concerned, he speaks of names and sticks and stones. 1 would accuse the Hon. Member of being a coward, because he has made repeated statements in the House that he does not dare to repeat outside the House. He is abusing his parliamentary immunity.


Mr. Chretien:: Big chicken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He knows I can't answer him. You know I can't answer. You are the coward.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Big chicken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have no political morality. Always smear, Jean, when you are in trouble.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In 1980 in Windsor, the Prime Minister promised not only the people in that community but Canadians at large that the Government of Canada, and his Party specifically, if elected, would produce an over-all industrial strategy and a particular strategy for the automotive industry, which currently employs 100,000 men and women directly and many more thousands indirectly across Canada.
Yesterday a task force report which represented a consensus from automotive companies, automotive parts producers and the trade union movement, produced such a strategy which it recommended to the Government. As the Leader of the Government, does the Prime Minister accept the key principle of that report, which is that foreign automotive producers ought to produce jobs in Canada in rough proportion to their sales in this country? Does he accept the principle that, if they are going to make profits from Canadians, they ought to be producing jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a report which he says was made public yesterday. I am sorry but I have not been made familiar with the contents of that report.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not expect the Prime Minister to be familiar with the content. That is why I did not ask him about specific details of the report. If some of the Ministers responsible in that area were in the House, it would have been helpful.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACCEPT PRINCIPLE OF RECOMMENDATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister a fundamental question of principle. I come back to his own commitment to produce a strategy. The
Oral Questions
principle involved is whether other automotive producers around the world such as the Japanese, French, and Germans, now have to meet the same standards that we imposed upon the American producers back in 1965, namely, that they have to provide job guarantees and investment guarantees in this country if they are going to sell here.
Given the implications for the future of thousands of existing jobs and potential jobs, will the Prime Minister commit the Government to accepting the principle that, if automotive producers will be selling to Canadians, they must invest in order to produce jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot accept that principle without having read the report. It may be that that principle is ensconsed in a certain number of guarded phrases, and it may be in the context of a particular auto pact that we have with the United States.
As a principle of international trade, surely it is impossible for a trading country like Canada to assert that anything that is sold in Canada must be counter balanced by investment for jobs in Canada. It would be impossible for Canada itself to meet those standards in our sales in every country. We try to sell at prices and values which are competitive in the market. We do not make demands of all those who are buying our goods, and we would not want them to demand of us that we would have to create a certain number of jobs in their country or to bring a certain amount of investment to their country in order to have the privilege of selling to their consumers.


John Edward Broadbent: I simply point out to the Prime Minister that the Japanese have agreed to start producing in the United States. They have agreed to start producing in Great Britain, West Germany, Venezuela, Mexico, and Australia, to name just a few countries that have Governments which are interested in producing a manufacturing base in their nations and have solidly imposed these standards to which the Japanese have agreed.


ROLE OF AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Does the Prime Minister not agree that we ought to be a nation that not simply exports our resources but also creates a dynamic and imaginative manufacturing sector, and that the automotive sector is key to that principle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I have been making that point in just about every country I visit, including Japan. As far as attempting to achieve that result is concerned the answer is that there is no disagreement.
The Hon. Member asked if 1 accept the general principle. 1 told him that I could not accept the general principle for the reasons I gave. But in a specific case, that is a matter for negotiation between countries, and the Minister responsible for international trade has previously answered those questions in the House. He is trying to get the best possible deal from those

May 20, 1983
Oral Questions
who trade with us, but not to the point of wrecking international trade.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It was reported in the western press that the Prime Minister earlier in the week stated to producers in western Canada that the Crow Bill was going to go through without changes. It was also reported that the Prime Minister indicated that it was not the best Bill that he could offer, and it was not economically viable. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to comment on that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as stated, the question is against the rules of the House. I am not supposed to comment on things reported in the newspapers. But if the Hon. Member wants to hear my views on the Crow, I certainly did not indicate the Bill would go through without changes. On the contrary, the various representatives I met in the West were anxious to appear before the committee of this House and present various forms of amendment. I indicated they would be welcome, that I was expecting them. I was hoping that this or next week they could present their amendments. I am somewhat ashamed that the stalling tactics of both Opposition Parties have deprived those in the West who think that this Bill can be improved. Both Opposition Parties have deprived them of the opportunity of coming before the House and therefore shorten the time in which the Bill can be approved.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I am ashamed also that the Prime Minister of my country would go to western Canada and indicate that no changes would be made, or very little change, and that the Bill was going to go through-


Some Hon. Members:: He did not say that.


Jack Wendele Shields: -that it could not be done at the whim of western producers because they cannot produce Liberal votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Prime Minister was the Prime Minister of all Canadians, whether they be NDP, Liberal, or Socialist.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Run, you're a socialist.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if that can be turned into a question, I suppose I am Prime Minister of all Canadians.


Mr. Kempling:: Supposed to be? You are.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope that on my trip in the west I conveyed to those westerners whom I met that we are anxious to deal with Crow rate, the hundred year old problem in the West.


Ian Deans: It was not a problem until you made it one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Incidentally, it was reported in the press that I had said we have changed the Bill in order to placate our Members from Quebec. I had said exactly the contrary. I had said that the Members from Quebec do not need a change in the Crow.


An Hon. Member:: Neither do westerners.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as Quebec is concerned, the Crow can stay for another hundred years, or two hundred years.


Some Hon. Members:: Good.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some Members are saying good, particularly the NDP Members, and the petitions they have. But I can assure this House, as I assured the West, that in so far as the Quebec Members are concerned we do not need a change in the Crow.


Ian Deans: Don't change it then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But we think that the people in the West themselves are agreed that the Crow should be changed, in ways that they cannot agree upon among themselves. They think that the Crow should be changed. It is because the Members from Quebec believe in policies for Canada, not only for Quebec, that they are prepared to support this Bill.


FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance 1 will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. This week the Minister of Finance announced that the deficit for the last fiscal year ending March 31 was $21.3 billion, double the deficit of the previous year, and subject to revision in August. This is the sixth estimate of the deficit by the Government in the last eleven months. August will be the seventh. Why is the Government so sloppy in the spending of money that it does not have? Why are these constant revisions necessary?


Mr. Lang:: You still do not understand principles.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member began her comments with the observation that the Minister of Finance was not here today. I
May 20, 1983

would like to point out to the House that the Minister of Finance was here on Tuesday when the Opposition took a holiday and decided not to come into the House of Commons.
It is very obvious, too, that the Hon. Member who makes that comment is the third Member from the Opposition who has had the job of finance critic. Her two predecessors are not in the House today. They are out campaigning.


William James Kempling: Cosgrove logic.


Paul James Cosgrove: I wish the Hon. Member would recognize that the Minister of Finance is either in the House or is in the country working on matters dealing with the finances of this country that primarily concern jobs for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: If you weren't in the House nobody would notice.


BUDGET DISCUSSION
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to bring a budget to this House of Commons.


Mr. Ouellet:: He did.


Pat Carney: It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to appear in this House and defend it. It is very difficult to discuss a budget in the continuing absence of a Minister who is now in Toronto talking the Tory line. He is talking about how double-digit interest rates and renewed inflation will start our economic problems again.
If the Minister of Finance is not prepared to defend his budget, and the Minister of State for Finance is not prepared or cannot defend the budget, with whom does the Minister of State suggest we discuss it?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has indeed discussed the budget. We have had three votes on the budget. The Hon. Member's criticism of lack of participation, or lack of debate, on the budget is hollow, when you consider that approximately half of the Official Opposition was absent and did not even bother to show up to vote against the budget during the votes that we had, following debate on the budget and following release of the budget in this House. What on earth is the Hon. Member talking about?


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to return
Oral Questions
to the auto task force matter. As a western Member of Parliament I was one of the perhaps few who favoured the Prime Minister's trip to the Pacific Rim on a trade mission because trade is so important to my part of the country. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he was briefed on that trip, and is he aware that Nissan Motor Co. of Japan has been manufacturing engines in Australia since 1978? Nissan built 50,000 Australian units last year. Is the Prime Minister aware that Toyota has just expanded a huge overseas plant in Australia to build engines and transmissions?
Will the Prime Minister not agree that we can have it both ways, in the sense that he can accept the principle that we can be a resource exporter to Japan, as is Australia, and at the same time we can protect our manufacturing base here in Canada? Would the Prime Minister agree with that principle? We do the same thing with the United States. We export to the U.S. We have an auto pact. Does the Prime Minister agree with that principle, and would he indicate to the House what he is going to do with that task force report, and what is the next step in getting an auto pact deal with Japan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. I would agree with that statement as much as the Hon. Member agreed on the importance of my trip to the Pacific Rim countries.
The second question asked what I will do with the task force report. I will ensure that it has been received by the Minister of State for International Trade and his Department and that they will bring to Cabinet recommendations which would be the best possible for Canadian trade and for the consumers in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister could also give the task force report to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


ASSEMBLY OF CARS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister further push and take as a public position that some of the manufacturing, if and when we get manufacturing and the assembling of Japanese cars in Canada, should take place on the West Coast, specifically British Columbia, to add to our manufacturing base so that we are not completely dependent upon resource exports.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very interesting if some of that development could happen in western Canada, not only in British Columbia but perhaps in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, or even the Yukon.
OraI Questions PETRO-CANADA

May 20, 1983


BENEFICIARIES OF MORTGAGE LOANS-JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-DISCLOSURE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last October I asked the Minister through a question on the Order Paper for details concerning certain mortgages that Petro-Canada had on its books and regarding the beneficiaries of these mortgage loans. Six months later the Minister replied, saying that that was for the management of Petro-Canada alone to know and was none of our business in this House.
How can the Minister justify this secrecy when, under provincial securities law, private corporations must make such information known to their shareholders? In the case of "our" supposedly Crown corporation, as the ad indicates, how can he justify that we in the House are not allowed to have information which private companies by law are required to give to their shareholders?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is according to the practice which has been followed in many instances. For example, over the years many Members of Parliament have complained because they could not obtain, for example, the salaries of people who work for the CBC. They were not available to the public because of the competition in the market. Following that through, because this corporation is operating in the market, it does not want to reveal to the public information which its competitors do not reveal.
I will check the point the Hon. Member is making. He is making a very interesting observation that, under provincial law, they are obliged to do so. I will check that again with the directors of Petro-Canada. Personally I have no objection, but we have a Crown corporation which has to compete in the private market under the same rules as the others. If the Hon. Member is telling me that its competitors are obliged to do so,
I will certainly find out why Petro-Canada cannot do the same.


Harvie Andre: If the Minister is to look up the law, it is Section 127 of the Alberta Securities Act; I do not know about the other Provinces.


FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Given what has been happening with Crown corporations-all these incredible messes which have been occurring-and given the fact that the Auditor General pointed out that Petro-Canada refused to provide information necessary for him to complete the mandate given him by Parliament, would the Minister not agree that it is about time for all Crown corporations, but particularly the ones under his jurisdiction, to have a policy of openness, and of making information available? Would he not agree- and he seemed to earlier; I hope he will confirm it-that at the
bare minimum the Crown corporations must live up to the standards expected of private corporations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact nature of the difficulty between Petro-Canada and the Auditor General. There was a problem about one transaction, but under the law Petro-Canada has its own auditors, like many other Crown corporations. There was one problem mentioned to me in relation to the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada, and there was some explanation given of that. I have appeared before the Committee where this question might have been asked of me. I think this is the first time in seven months that I have been asked such a question by the Hon. Member.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the Minister clarify the Government's policy concerning further processing of uranium in Canada? At the present time the Government is spending some $200 million to build uranium refining facilities at Port Hope and Blind River. However, last summer it exempted a large sale of uranium concentrate from being upgraded in Canada, representing a loss of $10 million in foreign exchange and many jobs for Canadians. In view of the money being spent for refining capacity and the need for jobs, will the Minister make a clear statement that we will require our uranium to be upgraded in Canada before being exported to our customers abroad?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is always a very difficult problem. Every application for export is reviewed by a committee of three Departments which looks at the advisability of giving a permit for export without refining or only after refining. Every case is looked upon on its own merits. Sometimes permits are given when we feel that it is in the best interests of Canada to export it directly, because otherwise we might lose the sale. As I said, every case is being investigated and judged. At this time there is a review of that policy. It is always a difficult judgment to make. We want to maximize refining in Canada, but at the same time we cannot create a situation where uranium mines in Canada will lose too many sales.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I appreciate that he has not had a chance to read the report of the auto task force, but he does know about the auto pact of 1965. Presently there is a bill
May 20, 1983

before the United States Congress, called the Domestic Contents Automotive Bill, on which our Ambassador has written a letter. What other action will the Prime Minister take to protect an already existing pact with the United States, namely, the auto pact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. That Bill has given us a great deal of concern. It has been raised in various fora with the United States administration. I myself raised that general subject when I had lunch with President Reagan two weeks ago. The administration is somewhat inclined to say, "Well, this is Congress and we cannot always control them,"-any more than we can control the House of Commons as well as we would like-"but we, the administration, believe in international trade and will see what we can do." That was their general attitude, but the Hon. Member knows that our embassy in Washington is very busy trying to convey to Congressmen the danger of this kind of protectionist trend.
. NECESSITY TO LOBBY CONGRESS


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Prime Minister is doing what he can, but as he knows that in the United States lobbying is done extensively on all Bills. Has he formed some potential lobby organization to protect the auto pact? There are many people in my riding and across Canada who are terrified that this pact might go down the drain and they will lose their jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that the Canadian embassy in Washington is concerned and that it is involved in lobbying. I am not sure, but I understand that there are even lobbyists hired on behalf of the Canadian Government to ensure that the lobbying is done properly. I recollect-and it is vague in my memory- that there was even some complaint from some quarters that we were hiring lobbyists in order to protect Canadian interests. 1 am happy to see that we have the Hon. Member's support on that.


RAILWAYS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He indicated in answer to a question by one of the Conservative Members that there was no need to change the Crow rate as far as Quebec was concerned. I note with interest that there has been no great push for change from the Maritimes, Ontario, or British Columbia. To the contrary, the people in the Prairies, who are most affected are very much opposed to the change. Other than CPR, who wants this change?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is obviously rhetorical. The Hon. Member knows that many westerners want the change. I can assure him that it is not for the benefit of Quebec, the Maritimes or, for that matter, Ontario. It is in the West where a consensus has developed that the Crow-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot understand why the Hon. Member's Party is laughing when I make that statement. The other day one of the spokesmen for his Party was on his feet suggesting certain forms of change to the Crow. The Hon. Member shakes his head. Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot remember exactly what Member asked the question, but I remember there was a question asked of this side of the House suggesting that, if we were going to change the Crow, we should change it in a certain way.
Every single leader whom I met in the West, Mr. Speaker, from various interests, cattlemen, grain people, elevator people, every single one said that the Crow had to go. One of them said "Well, I have had four people phone me saying that they would not like any change to the Crow".


Ian Deans: Four people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Four people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have heard people in the streets and I have heard petitioners say that they did not want any change, but every responsible leader with whom I have met said that there is a consensus that the Crow must be changed for the good of western Canada, not for Quebec, not for the Maritimes, not for Ontario. Premier Bennett has said it. The Hon. Member said that British Columbia did not want it. The Premier of that Province has said that he wanted the kind of change that the Minister of Transport is proposing.
The Premier of Alberta has said that he wanted the Crow to go. The then Premier of Manitoba, Premier Lyons, wanted a change in the Crow.


Ian Deans: That is only two Tories so far.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am on the verge of committing indiscretions, but I can tell the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Go ahead.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have the permission of the NDP, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the Hon. Members that every western Premier who had dinner with me when we had the meeting on the economy a couple of months ago, every western Premier there said he thought we should change the Crow.

May 20, 1983
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


FEEDSTOCK PRICES CHARGED TO PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will know that the petrochemical industry in Canada is under continuous distress and that that distress comes from the feedstock prices that are being charged to the industry. He will know that governments account for approximately 75 per cent of the cost of the feedstock to these industries. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he has any intention, on behalf of the Government, to change the feedstock pricing policy to the petrochemical industry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that issue is a very complicated one because there is no clear cut policy on that. At this time there are many people in the market place who are asking the Government to go to a policy where there would be only one price for oil, for everybody, which would be the international price. What the Hon. Member is suggesting at this time is not what is being asked of all of the Tory candidates who go to Alberta to appear in front of a court these days. I believe that the Hon. Member will have to reconcile his views on that.
I welcome views on the subject and I gather that the Opposition Party wants to maintain a Canadian price that is lower than the international price for oil. I would like to hear the views of other members of that Party.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but since he is not in his seat I address my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Could the Minister of State for Finance tell the House today the status of the ratification measure related to the bilateral agreement between Canada and West Germany on double taxation of pensions? This agreement was signed by the Prime Minister two years ago. Could the Minister tell us what could possibly stand in the way of having this matter finally dealt with in the House of Commons?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member's question is a supplementary designed to follow a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I did not have notice of the question, but I do recall that the Hon. Member has raised the issue. My recollection, and it is simply a recollection, is that there were some legal difficulties with the implementation of the agreement. I will undertake to get an update on that for the Hon. Member.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. What steps does the Minister intend to take under the Canada Labour Code, or any other provision, to protect the rights of the three Canadian seamen members of the SIU who were suspended from that union? Two of them were suspended for ten years and a third was suspended for life plus 18 years, meaning that they are virtually blacklisted from working as seamen on the Great Lakes. I would say that the punishment is excessive as their only apparent crime, Mr. Speaker, was that they campaigned against the incumbent president. What steps is the Minister taking to protect the rights of these Canadian workers from this excessive kind of union activity?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to realize that, under the Canada Labour Code, there is a provision which protects employees against termination of employment because of suspension from union membership. In addition, the Code protects union members against discriminatory application of trade union membership rules or standards of discipline. I am referring to Section 185 of the Code. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if there ware any complaints to be made about violations of the Code, those complaints should be made to the Canadian Labour Relations Board for remedy.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. As the Minister knows, his Department, the officials of his Department, and I presume the Minister and his predecessor have been working on amendments to the Customs Act, the revision of that statute being long overdue. Is it the intention of the Minister to table in the House at some point, perhaps in the Fall, some amendments to the Customs Act, or even a new Customs Act?
Second, now that the Solicitor General has bitten the bullet with respect to mail opening under certain rules in terms of the Security Service, is it the intention of the Minister to recommend for inclusion in that statute a provision for the opening of first class mail passing through Canada Customs for the purposes of finding narcotics, contraband, and other matters that his officials have no doubt told him constitute a great problem?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I admit I am very pleased with the question put by the Hon. Member, especially since it shows the Hon.
May 20, 1983

Member's interest in having a new Customs Act in Canada that would contain provisions aimed at monitoring the use of the mails for sending contraband goods, and especially narcotics.
I may also say that I am counting on the Hon. Member supporting the Bill within his own caucus, to ensure that if the Bill were tabled in the House shortly, it could be considered with due dispatch and quickly referred to the appropriate standing committee, which would then be able to proceed with a thorough study of the Bill. We might then have a new Custmoms Act by the end of June.
1 can assure the Hon. Member that if he can guarantee the co-operation of his caucus, I will discuss with the Government House Leader the possibility of tabling this Bill as soon as possible and getting it quickly through the second reading stage for consideration in committee and then back to the House for third reading.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister seems to be confusing two separate issues when he discusses transportation problems and the Crow rate in western Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister if he has discussed these two policy decisions separately with the Premiers of the Provinces and with the groups in the West, because it seems to me that he is confusing a favourable response to his question about the need for railway upgrading with a favourable response to his question about the need for changing the Crow. Does he indeed speak of them as two separate issues, or does he insist on combining them as one issue as is the case with the Bill that the Minister of Transport has brought before the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. There are two aspects, and some of my interlocutors are more interested in one aspect than in the other. For instance, it is easy to see that those who are interested in an improved transportation system would probably include a lot of Manitobans, because I understand the Minister of Transport has announced or will announce that there will be some 1,000 proper cars or so built at the Tran-scona plant in Winnipeg.
The Hon. Member should realize, as the people of Winnipeg should realize, that one goes with the other. We are not going to need those cars if we cannot move the grain. We will not be able to move the grain if we cannot pay for the movement of grain. Therefore, the whole matter is interlinked. That is why I repeat that every person I have met from the West realizes
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
that the Crow must change. The whole system must change in order that transportation be made more efficient, and in order that the industrial development of the West becomes a greater possibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I am afraid he has already departed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that all the petitions, with the exception of three presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 19, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Peterson) and two of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will surprise you that I rise on a question of privilege, but I will not take too much of the time of the House. 1 have checked the rule book but I really do not care about the rule book in terms of getting into a dissection of what is privilege and what is not.
A few minutes ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called me a coward. We in public life are called many things and will be called many things outside this Chamber, and obviously sometimes we will be called things in this Chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, I would really like the Prime Minister to reconsider that remark. In view of the dignity of this Chamber, let alone the prerogative of its office, does he really think that type of language is the type of language that should be used by a Prime Minister who is supposed to set some standards? In yelling out the accusation he is implying the basest type of motives to what a Member is trying to do by asking questions that are in the public domain. A Crown corporation and the political appointment of its head are matters that are certainly within the public domain.
I am going to ask the Prime Minister to reflect on that and see if he wants to continue to have the language of this House become the language of the school yard or sometimes even the language of the barnyard. Surely there is some onus on him.

May 20, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
I am asking the Prime Minister to withdraw, not that I am personally upset as I said earlier, especially in view of the source, but there has to be some dignity in this Chamber. On that basis 1 am asking the Prime Minister to withdraw the word rather than my getting into a dissection of all of the rulings made in this House for the last 50 years or 60 years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very well recognized that the word I used is not unparliamentary. 1 would suggest that what the Hon. Member has been doing repeatedly is using his privilege to make accusations and insinuations in the House, which he knows would bring a libel case against him if he were to make them outside. I suggest that is contrary to the spirit of Parliament and is undignified to the utmost degree.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to let the Prime Minister know that I have every intention, outside the House, to pose the same question about the cowardice or courage of the Prime Minister in allowing a chairman, where legitimate questions have arisen over the conduct of this office regardless of criminality, stay in office heading the board of one of the most prestigious Crown corporations in the land.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Hon. Member is going beyond the point he raised in the beginning in terms of parliamentary language. I was hoping that at this point there would be a disposition to go on.
Is the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) rising on the same matter?


John Edward Broadbent: A different question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rising on the same matter?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: I am rising on the same matter, Mr. Speaker. I would draw your attention to Beau-chesne at page 111 where it suggests that it is parliamentary to use the word "coward". However, if the Chair were to examine the reference in the debate the Chair would find that that reference was used by a Member who suggested that another Member, who did not have the courage to take the floor, was being a coward by not taking the floor to rise in debate. I suggest to the Chair that the word "coward" as used by the Prime Minister was not parliamentary and it can be distinguished by looking at the case which is referred to as supporting the use of the word "coward".
1 do not think one can simply look at Beauchesne; one has to look at what the ruling was based on. I suggest to the Chair that the word "coward" is unparliamentary, and the Prime Minister should be asked to withdraw it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am now citing from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Chapter 7, page 110 and 111 as follows:
Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions:
One of them is the word "coward". The Chair at this stage cannot go beyond the citations in Beauchesne.
The Chair has taken note of the fact that the Prime Minister, in his second statement, rephrased his remarks very carefully and made his statement in very temperate and careful language. I would hope there would be a disposition by the House at this point to proceed to another matter.


MR. BROADBENT-STATEMENT OF MR. TRUDEAU DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a separate question of privilege. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said earlier that he was about to commit an indiscretion. 1 think that is to put it euphemistically. He stated to the House that at a dinner-I presume he was referring to the dinner at his own residence at the time of the First Ministers Conference recently-all the West-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member appears to be entering into debate.


John Edward Broadbent: No, I am not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order? What is the purpose for which he is seeking the recognition of the Chair?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rising on a question of privilege, if you will listen to it. Just listen to the question of privilege.
Just a few minutes ago in the House the Prime Minister got up and said to the House of Commons that the western Premiers who were at that dinner, without exception, agreed that there should be a change in the Crow rate.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that he misinformed the House, deliberately or otherwise. He had better correct that because I have just contacted the Premier of the Province of Manitoba who says that that assertion if false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I want Hon. Members to bear in mind the dignity of the House. At this point the Chair cannot permit Members to enter into debate, and the fact that there is an opportunity and a forum to do it-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot, on the face of it, see a question of privilege. It may be a matter of debate. On the face of it, it is not privilege.
Is the Right Hon. Prime Minister seeking to be recognized?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with your ruling but I can say that I am somewhat surprised, if the Hon. Member is quoting Premier Pawley correctly. Premier Pawley is on record

in his case I did not think I was making an indiscretion-Premier Pawley is on record as saying that the recent changes made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-he is happy that they have been made. He is happy with them. So maybe the Hon.
May 20, 1983

Member could spend another dime and get the whole matter straightened out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, this appears to be a difference of opinion as to fact. A difference of opinion concerning facts is not a matter of privilege.
Presenting reports.


John Edward Broadbent: As a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet and I say to the House that the Prime Minister has lied to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Language has been used by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) which is unparliamentary. 1 request the Hon. Member for Oshawa to withdraw the unparliamentary language.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister a few minutes ago made a comment, with reference to a conversation which took place at a dinner at his place, in which he attributed words to the Premier of Manitoba, and I have just checked with the Premier of Manitoba who has told me that it is incorrect. In normal language that means lying. I repeat, the Prime Minister has misinformed the House about that conversation. If he were a man of integrity, instead of turning around and waltzing out of the House, he would have had the courtesy to say to the House that he misinformed the House. He did not do that. I do not withdraw my comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, Hon. Members are acutely aware of the language which is considered parliamentary and unparliamentary by the House. I must ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa if he would rephrase his remarks so that he would not use language which is clearly unparliamentary. Again I must ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa, for whom I have a high regard and who has generally observed parliamentary procedures, as well as other Hon. Members of this House, to withdraw the remark, which I am sure he knows is not parliamentary.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be helpful. I am the one who said to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the Premier of Manitoba had indicated he was satisfied and was pleased with the changes I had made.


John Edward Broadbent: At the dinner at 24 Sussex?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, no. I do not think that was a reference, in the last contribution by the Prime Minister, to the dinner. I do not think so. Anyway, I just want to take the credit or the blame for having said to the Prime Minister that Premier Pawley had rejoiced in the changes which I had made. My reasoning is that in the past, the Government of Saskatchewan,
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
for example, had indicated that it had nine conditions which it wanted to apply, and there was a vote in the Legislature in Regina, Saskatchewan, to the effect that if the Government of Canada were to accept those nine conditions, it would be in favour of change.
That would indicate therefore that the Government of Saskatchewan is in favour of change. The same resolution which was passed in the Legislature in Regina was copied and was passed also by the Legislature in Manitoba. That also would indicate that in certain conditions are met, the provincial Government, the Assemblies in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan, would be in favour of change also. Hence, the general conclusion which the Prime Minister reached, and I had reached a long time ago, that leading politicians in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are in favour of change, that is, of a transformation, a reform, an adjustment, a modernization of the Crowsnest rate.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I as a relatively long-time Member of this House have always had respect for the rules but, to be perfectly candid, I am sick and tired of the Prime Minister's having it both ways, a Prime Minister who systematically has misinformed this House many times in the past, who plays his cute little tricks and then waltzes out of here. If that Prime Minister, for once, behaves with a certain respect for all the Hon. Members of the House, and respects the rules of the House himself, and if he came back here and faced head on his assertion that he was told at a dinner in his residence that Premier Pawley accepted the change in the Crow, if he came back and dealt with that honestly, he would have to withdraw his remarks. If he withdraws his remarks, I will withdraw my comment, but not one minute before!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Order. While I can understand the arguments which have been raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the fact remains that he has used language which is clearly unparliamentary.


An Hon. Member:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) lied. What do you think?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would again request the Hon. Member, who is an experienced and distinguished parliamentarian, to respect the rules and practices of this House and withdraw his remark. I would hope that there would be another forum in which the differences concerning the facts could be resolved. However, the differences concerning the facts and the possible way in which such differences can be resolved, can hardly be a matter to which the Chair can pay attention at this time. The Chair must ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa to withdraw language which is clearly unparliamentary.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe, whatever may be the line of

May 20, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
argument of the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party and it could be the subject of disagreement, that the fact of the matter is that he has used unparliamentary language and he cannot excuse-


An Hon. Member:: So has the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


André Ouellet: -cannot excuse his conduct, by pointing, as an excuse, to the conduct of another Member of the House. What is the question here is the abuse of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in his language. Whatever may be his reasoning, it is not anyone else who is under scrutiny at this time; it is his own wording. I have known him for a long time. I know he is a good parliamentarian. 1 know his Party has very strong views on the Crowsnest legislation which is before the House. I believe that the attitude of that Party in recent days, and the attitude of the Leader of that Party today, show that they are going to try to use every trick to delay the passage of this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Surely, the Hon. Member will withdraw his words.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, 1 would ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa, for whom 1 am sure all Hon. Members of the House have a high regard in terms of his integrity and spirit, whether he would withdraw a remark which is clearly unparliamentary.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said as a person who has respected the rules of this House and throughout my political life have shown, I hope, greater respect for the truth than even for the rules of this place. If you want to hold your judgment and hold your ruling, I will respect that, in order to give the Prime Minister time to withdraw his comments. But I repeat, if there is not a withdrawal on the part of the Prime Minister, there will be no withdrawal on my part.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the point is not whether or not a Member has misinformed the House, but whether the language used by a Member is or is not parliamentary. The issue is quite straightforward, and I think the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) knows by experience that this is strictly a matter of procedure-as simple as that. He says that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used unparliamentary language. That is not true. The Prime Minister did not say anything unparliamentary. I suppose what the Hon. Member meant was that from the Hon. Member's point of view, what the Prime Minister said did not conform to the Hon. Member's view of reality. The Hon. Member for Oshawa is entitled to disagree with what someone else says. He is under no obligation to agree or disagree. The point is that he reacted by saying
that the Prime Minister lied, and it is generally acknowledged, by parliamentary practice, that this word constitutes unparliamentary language. The point is not whether the facts were or were not properly presented, but whether the Member for Oshawa has the right to accuse another Parliamentarian of lying. He may say that a Member of Parliament has misinformed the House-this is quite acceptable-but when he says an Hon. Member has lied, that kind of language is not acceptable to our parliamentary practice and our Standing Orders, and I think he knows that perfectly well.
If the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), with his parliamentary experience, insists on refusing to withdraw an expression that is obviously unparliamentary, that is a clear indication that he wants to take advantage of the situation-as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was saying-to obstruct the proceedings, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. And if he is really asking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Mr. Broadbent, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair.


Mr. Nielsen:: I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rises on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps we can avoid the procedure which is triggered by the naming process if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could now perhaps respond to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). That would avoid a vote and salvage an Opposition day which is about to go down the drain. Would the Prime Minister perhaps respond to the invitation of the Leader of the NDP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, though I missed some of the debate, I understand the matter is on whether Premier Pawley, yes or no, indicated that he was favourable to-


Erik Nielsen: At 24 Sussex.


John Edward Broadbent: At your dinner.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, at the dinner, Mr. Speaker, I can only stand by what I remember to have been an exchange between ten Premiers, that the matter of the Crow was raised. To the best of my recollection, Premier Pawley-and the other Premiers present, those who participated in debate, and they included the western Premiers, indicated that they thought the Crow should be changed. I do not say they indicated any particular way. They thought the Crow was something that would have to be dealt with. I am not indicating there was any detailed discussion of the proposals made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). But as to the matter of the transportation of grain and other matters in the West, as to the importance of making those changes, I can only stand by what I said.
May 20, 1983

I am sorry that I perhaps was led to make these statements because these dinners are supposed to be rather confidential. It is not the first time that comment has been made on conversations taking place there. I repeat, 1 feel all the more confident in repeating my assertion that, as the Minister of Transport has indicated, Mr. Pawley is on record as wanting some form of change.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the Prime Minister. If he is now prepared to say, in contrast to what he said some time ago when he made the flat assertion that Premier Pawley and the other western Premiers-and I understand that, too, is incorrect-but with reference only to Premier Pawley, if he is now saying that he might be mistaken, then I am prepared to withdraw my remark. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say he might be mistaken in his recollection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, one can always be mistaken. In this particular case I do not think that was the case. I remember we had a discussion on various aspects of federal policy in areas where it ran into difficulties in the Provinces. I remember that basically the sentiment of that meeting-and not everyone spoke-was that, including the Premier who is of interest to the Hon. Member, was that the federal Government was correct in proceeding with some policy relating to western transportation and the Crow.


Some Hon. Members:: And the Crow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the Crow. Mr. Speaker, the subject came up over the Crow and I asked one Premier present: Why don't you support the Crow more publicly? And the answer was, well, you know, it is not good politics.


John Edward Broadbent: What Premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, one Premier who was there. So the Hon. Member can make what he wants of-


An Hon. Member:: You are evading.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I am not evading, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously no written record of the meeting. If Premier Pawley were across the aisle and we were exchanging recollections, Mr. Speaker, I would be more inclined to take his statement of what he said than when it comes to the Hon. Member in a phone call, which was probably on a yes or no basis. I can only suggest that if the Hon. Member wants to carry on this debate and not lose an Opposition day, I would be happy to settle the matter with Premier Pawley. If, in his view and that of the other Premiers present, there is some misunderstanding on my part, I am prepared to say that. But I am not prepared to say it now without talking to Premier Pawley or without having the views of the other Premiers present.
Committee Reports


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a historical first. For the first time the Prime Minister of this country has publicly admitted that he might have misinformed someone. On those grounds I will categorically and completely withdraw my comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think-
Mr Nielsen: Don't screw it up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the Hon. Member would have been a little more gracious if he had withdrawn his remark without saying that 1 admitted that I had publicly misinformed-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said. There was no misinformation. The exchange occurred the way I put it to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to interrupt this lively exchange among Parliamentarians, but I have very good news for the House. The Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which I have the honour of chairing, is tabling its Sixteenth Report which deals with an order of reference received from the House to consider and receive testimony by parliamentary delegations. Last Friday, the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence considered a report by the parliamentary delegation which attended a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union held in Rome last September. This is a first, and we intend to pursue consideration of reports from various delegations on their meetings abroad.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

May 20, 1983
Order Paper Questions


PETITION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission I will give it another try and see if I can get it right this time. 1 have a petition from the Comox-Powell River riding with a large number of signatures which pertains to a matter of proxy voting in the next federal election. These individuals have indicated that they wish the House of Commons to consider an amendment to the Elections Act to provide for absentee voting.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1983-84 AMENDED REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Order of the House of May 18, 1983, referring the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1983-1984, to the several Standing Committees of the House, be amended by removing the reference of Social Development Items 2a and 3a to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and by adding the reference to the said items to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I think there is unanimous consent for that motion to be adopted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,180, 4,732, 4,763 and 4,797.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	What is the exact cost of the McDonald Royal Commission?
2.	By year, what amount was paid by the Government to (a) the law firm of Courtois, Clarkson, Parsons and Tetrault (b) the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon (c) the law firm of Lamontagne, Mongeau and Bainville (d) lawyer Ross Goodwin for work done in connection with the McDonald Commission?
3.	To date, what amount was paid by the Government for legal services in connection with the Commission?
4.	What amount was paid by the (a) Privy Council (b) Department of the Solicitor General for legal services in connection with the Commission?
5.	What amount was paid to (a) Professor Franks of Queen's University (b) Professor Edwards of the University of Toronto (c) Professor Friedland of the University of Toronto for the "background studies" prepared by them for the Commission?
6.	For what reason did the Government not publish an itemized accounting of the costs of the Commission?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	McDonald Royal Commission only: $8,098,786.73.
2.	(a) Commission: nil, PCO: nil, RCMP: 78/79, $248,076.36, (b) Commission: 77/78, $73,850, 78/79, $121,098, 79/80, $32,290, 80/81, $64,710, 81/82, $4,150. PCO: nil, RCMP: nil. (c) Commission: nil, PCO: nil, RCMP: 79/80, $178,701.91, 80/81, $521,991.05, 81/82, $66,637.63, (d) Commission: 77/78, $15,525, 78/79, $127,775, 79/80, $ 198,500, 80/81, $132,125, 81/82, $18,400. PCO: nil, RCMP: nil.
3.	Commission: $2,289,283, PCO: $16,592.89, RCMP: $1,668,629.
Note: In addition, the amount paid by the Ministry Secretariat of the Solicitor General for legal services in connection with the Commission of Inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was $1,585,200. This amount includes legal services in connection with representation before the Keable Inquiry in the Province of Quebec.
4.	See Part 3 above.
5.	(a) Commission: $10,000, PCO: nil, RCMP: nil. (b) Commission: $96,435, PCO: nil, RCMP: nil. (c) Commission: $52,413, PCO: nil, RCMP: nil.
6.	An itemized accounting of costs of the Commission by standard objects of expenditure has been published annually in Public Accounts.


Mr. Bosley: During the period between the receipt of the Prime Minister's instruction for the granting of three 15-minute free-time appearances on CBC/Radio-Canada networks and the acquiesence in October, 1982, which senior officials of the CBC were consulted by the President of the CBC and what specific questions were put to them?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: 1 am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
No instruction was received by the CBC from the Prime Minister's office in connection with the appearances. A request was made for air time and the request met the requirements of the policy on prime ministerial broadcasts on current issues which was established following discussions between the CBC and representatives of the federal political parties.
The President of the CBC consulted the senior officers responsible for this area of program policy, asking them questions about its history and the previous interpretations that had been given to it. The President takes full responsibili-
May 20, 1983	_______________________________COMMONS
ty for both the consultation and for the decision which was taken.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of the cost of the CBC Wayne & Shuster Show is recovered by advertising?


Francis Fox: 1 am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
In the period October, 1982 to March 31, 1983, 31.4 per cent of the cost of the CBC Wayne and Shuster Show was recovered through advertising.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In 1982, how many servicemen and women were released from the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	For each year from 1975 to 1982, how many servicemen and women sought voluntary release from the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: The figures in part 1 of the answer mean total releases of servicemen and women for any reason whatsoever, i.e. retirement, medical, voluntary (on request), unsuitability for further employment, etc. Part 2 of the answer identifies only the number of servicemen and women who on their own request sought release from the Canadian Armed Forces.
1. Servicemen, 6,741, servicewomen, 734.
Year	Servicemen	Servicewomen1975	6,364	3731976	5,317	3881977	5,432	4451978	4,884	4041979	5,910	4321980	6,076	5051981	5,367	4971982	3,392	436


David P. Smith: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?
DEBATES__________________________________________25633
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


J. Michael Forrestall: That this House recognizes the need for long-term solutions to the economic difficulties facing Atlantic Canada and, although welcoming the injection of funds provided under the Special Recovery Program, rejects the manner in which those funds are being allocated, particularly the decision to use partisan advantage rather than need as the basis for the provision of funding, and condemns the Government for its failure to adopt policies which would create lasting economic growth with permanent jobs and investment in Atlantic Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion having been seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who is from western Canada, 1 did not really want the final phase of today's motion to stand in reflection of my colleagues from western Canada, although, God knows, they need almost as much help as we do.
The concerns that bring us here this afternoon are legendary and historic. They have cried out for help from this Government for many years. Now that we have a golden opportunity with respect to accelerated recovery of the national economy, most of us in Atlantic Canada thought something permanent and good might happen, that perhaps at last we might be able to tackle, in a long-term way, the problems facing our imbalance in agriculture, our deficit with our neighbouring Provinces with respect to meat, feed grains and other things. We did not see that. With respect to the fisheries, we looked forward to the Kirby Report. We looked with anticipation to funds under the Special Recovery Program to assist in bringing order out of the chaos which is there and to provide permanent, long-term jobs. Did we get it? No, we did not.
In the area of transport, in the eastern Canadian Provinces which, by definition, mean parts of eastern Quebec and the four Atlantic Provinces, in transportation requirement alone, $1.5 billion would not even begin to scratch the surface. We need highway strengthening. We must do something about rail transportation in Newfoundland. We must improve our Gulf ferry services to Prince Edward Island. We have taken some meaningful measures in the last two or three years, but the point is that we are running way behind in ferry fleet renewal.
Where we stand today, we should have been 10 or 12 years ago. In the fisheries, for example, there is an additional $140 million. I want to tell the House what concerns me when I speak of mid- and long-term assistance. We have heard all kinds of evidence from professional fishermen, their unions and associations, about the way in which the Minister designated to head the special ministerial grouping under this recovery program has handled matters. We heard from those fishermen suggestions as to how and what long-term projects could be put into place which would provide permanent jobs, provide the markets, provide the acceleration of this very critical and very vital industry in Atlantic Canada. Instead, what did we get?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 20, 1983
Supply
I will just point to Nova Scotia and deal with it very quickly because I use it only as an example. We see that $25.4 million of the $140 million is going into the Province of Nova Scotia, the largest fishing Province in this country of ours. What percentage is that of $140 million, 1 ask the Minister? It is very small. Where is the money going? When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) received his share, and when the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) received her share, there was nothing left over for anyone else.
For seven years now, I have been trying to persuade the Government to build a wharf, for example, serving the only fishing community left in Halifax harbour, located at Eastern Passage. That wharf is now a peril and a menace to the general public. It should be torn out, destroyed and replaced with a good, adequate facility. When I called to ask whether or not that particular project might be considered, Public Works officials, Fisheries and Oceans officials and Small Craft Harbours officials were all, without exception, embarrassed to even talk to me about it. When we press them, this is what we learn: that there is a list of projects put forward by the various Departments and, in the case of Fisheries and Oceans, if one was not a Liberal Member, one did not get a look in the door. Not one single Tory riding in Atlantic Canada, I will bet you a buck, will receive any of that money at all. Some may have to go into the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), because it is the largest fishing constituency in this country. The Government will regret even doing that.
These are legitimate concerns of people, mid- and long-term legacies, much needed wharfs, breakwaters, skidways, haul-outs, but not a nickel will go into any Conservative riding in Atlantic Canada by choice. It suggests to the fishermen that the Government does not care about their legitimate needs, short-term, mid-term or long-term but, rather, cares more about porkbarrelling, the tradition of the present Government which it has finely tuned. The Liberals are expert at it, absolute experts.
It is not good enough under the Special Recovery Program to allow this situation to continue to exist. The Government has allocated $640 million for transport in general. It is earmarked and will go into fleet replacement for the Canadian Coast Guard, something absolutely vital and necessary. Where will the building be done? How much will go to Halifax? How much will go to Saint John? Who will determine where that building program takes place? Given the experience of the HMCS Nipigon and the actions of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) in the last couple of weeks, the Government no longer calls tenders. It calls for prices. Remember "CFP" Canadians, because that is what we will live with under the Government, a call for prices. The prices go into the Minister's office. He sits there, and what does he say? "We will put this one in Sorel. Let us put this one hither and yon". He will not put anything in Halifax or in Saint John. I doubt if Ferguson Industries will get anything. I doubt if Marystown will get anything. It will go somewhere else in Canada.
Mind you, on the other hand, if the Government did give us some work, 80 per cent of the capital costs, the hard components of vessels, would leak back to central Canada in any event. That is not good enough. The Government, presumably because of its heartfelt concern for Unemployment Insurance exhaustees, is to use the Special Recovery Program to get these exhaustees some form of regular income, which is Unemployment Insurance benefits in this case. It has decided that one method of doing this quickly and expeditiously will be to lay off casual but for all intents and purposes long-term employees and replace them with workers who have exhausted their Unemployment Insurance benefits.
While this sounds good, I must question whether the Minister and his Government have given any consideration to those employees who will have their income reduced from $8 or $10 an hour to $5 or $6 an hour. The Government is telling him to go home and meet his obligations, educate his children and feed his family at this lowest level. How can that be done without massive social disruption within his community and in his own life?
Under the Goverment's program these exhaustees who have completed a minimum of 12 week's employment will be right back out the door and the Government will put some more through that process. Is the Government changing the structure of our society? Is it condemning the underemployed to live this way for the rest of their lives? Is that the best that a nation like Canada can do? I do not believe it is and 1 suggest that my colleagues on this side of the House share that concern.
While massive amounts of borrowing being used for shortterm make-work projects may very well be absolutely necessary, surely that could be tempered or balanced by a form of investment that would ensure long-term permanent job opportunities for Canadians.
It is a historical fact that when the Canadian economy goes down, the Atlantic economy ends up at the bottom, and when the Canadian recovery resumes, the Atlantic economy stays at the bottom. We have historically been the first to suffer from recession in this country and, without question, we have been the last to recover. Where is the social concern on the part of the Goverment for Canadians who live east of Diamond Point?
We would much sooner see this money being spent more wisely. For example, we would rather see $2 billion spent in an effort to make eastern Canada self-sufficient in its food supply. Later this afternoon some of my colleagues will deal with the impact of the Government's intention to kill our own eastern Crow rate, the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It already has a task force travelling throughout the country side asking Maritime and Atlantic businessmen what will happen if that freight rate is eliminated altogether. We know what the answer is because for over 60 years the MFRA in that little piece of Canada has enabled our producers to compete in the marketplace of central Canada. Its destruction will mean that we will not be able to compete or afford to put our goods and
May 20, 1983

products in the marketplace of central Canada. We are concerned about the Government's intention in that area. Why has the Government not designated some money toward the long-term solution of this marketing problem?
If the Government is bound and determined to kill the Maritime Freight Rates Act and stop the social and economic benefits that flow therefrom to producers, truck operators and railways in terms of access to central Canadian markets, it should earmark some money for offshore development. The Government should give that money to the wandering minstrel, the only Member who is in the House as infrequently as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), my colleague from across the harbour in Halifax, the wandering trade Minister. I have not seen him in the House since Christmas.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Marco Polo.


J. Michael Forrestall: Incidentally, the same Minister went to Halifax recently. Let me finish by talking about long-term benefits. He announced the provision of $52 million for a federal office building to be erected on a prime piece of Halifax waterfront to house all the federal public servants in Halifax. He would then empty Queen's Square in Dartmouth and empty about eight major office buildings that are strategically located around the city. This action would probably bankrupt the entrepreneurs who own those office buildings. Furthermore, he will put that building on a piece of land that has long been earmarked for the cultural needs of our Province and the metropolitan area. He has earmarked $52 million for this project when Nova Scotia needs a new provincial hospital, the construction of which has been shelved for three or four years because we do not have the funds.
Bridge pier fendering is needed from Halifax to Vancouver in order to protect lives. But is there any money earmarked for a project like that, which is a long term, permanent and visible legacy? No. Instead, the Government borrows and borrows to the point where no Government will be able to move anywhere in an economic sense by the mid 1980s. The cost of servicing our debt will be astronomical and almost undefinable. That Government will keep on borrowing until it is thrown out of office.
God help one of those distinguished Canadians who is seeking the leadership of my Party when he must face the mess that will be left as a result of this Government's irrational and irresponsible borrowing. This massive irresponsible borrowing is compounded by the fact that the money is not being spent for medium or long-term job creation or on projects which will have a permanent legacy. It is not being spent in order to give incentives to the entrepreneurs and businessmen of this country, the manufacturers. That is what we regret and why we stand today to condemn the Government for its ad hoc approach, boorish and downright crass porkbarrelling. It is to be rejected by every thoughtful and thinking person. The Minister laughs because he has won for his colleagues in the backbenches of the Liberal Party every little thing that they want and to hell with the rest of Canada.
Supply


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether questions will be posed to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)? I intend to speak on this motion and I am prepared to do so, but perhaps some Hon. Members wish to ask questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend if he knows the whereabouts of the Atlantic Members on the Government side? Are they out carving up the pork barrel that he referred to in his remarks?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where they are today. I do not know where the Hon. Member for South West Nova is or where Members from northern New Brunswick are.
I do not know where my colleagues from Newfoundland are. Given the long weekend, I do not think it would be hard to find them. I will tell you where they are. One of them at least is in northern New Brunswick, at a $15 million resource centre, which is very vital and necessary, but in three years' time, when the single purpose for which it was built has come to an end and it is over and done with, it will be another white elephant in northern New Brunswick as a result of the activities of this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there other Hon. Members rising to ask questions? If not, I will recognize the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston).


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, 1 am somewhat disappointed in the comments made by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for whom I have a great deal of time and respect. I would like, in the few minutes available to me, to relieve him of the anxieties and concerns which he apparently feels with respect to the Special Recovery Program, over which I as head of a subcommittee of Cabinet have over-all responsibility. When I refer to over-all responsibility, I mean to say responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of these projects to ensure that they move forward expeditiously and meet the criteria laid down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at the time he tabled his budget in April, and ensuring that they, in turn, are brought in on time and within the budget.
The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, I think, has perhaps not examined as he should have the nature of these projects, their intended purpose and the fact that they will indeed bring into existence long-term permanent jobs for Canadians.
Let me for a moment talk about the program in general and then deal with the situation in Nova Scotia, which I might say is a Province to which I am deeply attached myself, not having had the fortune to be born there but having had the wisdom to marry a Nova Scotian and to spend a good deal of time in

May 20. 1983
Supply
many areas of the Province, more particularly in the area represented by the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who is with us here in the House today.
[ Translation]
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to explain to my colleagues once again-the purpose of the program in question, the criteria selected for implementing the program, how we went about selecting the projects and the procedure and the mechanism we have established to ensure that the program is implemented as soon as possible.

In the budget there were a number of Special Recovery Programs. One, of course, deals largely with fiscal incentives, tax incentives, investment tax credits and so on. But the other side, to which the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has more particularly addressed himself, is the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. I would like to say that in both these cases, whether one looks at the Special Recovery Program introduced by the Minister of Finance on the Fiscal side or the Capital Projects, to which I will speak more specifically, they are designed to create long-term permanent jobs. In addition to that, the budget did deal with some specific improvements or augmentations to programs for direct job creation. More importantly, the budget recognized that longterm permanent jobs will be found by a strengthened private sector. The budget moved very firmly in that direction on the Fiscal side, and I will argue convincingly, I believe, for the beneFit of my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East that these augmentations did the same thing with respect to the Capital Projects.
The Program on Capital Projects has $2.4 billion allocated to it. That is the largest single capital investment program which has ever been undertaken by the Government of this country. It will create jobs. It will create jobs now, both temporary construction jobs in many instances and, more important, long-term permanent jobs. I know the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East argued a few moments ago that this was a pork barrel, and his motion deals more particularly with Atlantic Canada, but I will address this concern of his in a moment because I believe I can satisfy him on that count as well.
But let me first speak about the project itself. Why was it introduced at this particular time? The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has referred to his concern with respect to the deficit, or to borrowing. He refers to this Government as a Government that borrows. As the Minister of Finance has said, this Government, is concerned about that deficit and, accordingly, it was decided that these Special Recovery Capital Projects would be implemented. Programs would be implemented at this time because private sector investment intentions are not strong in the upcoming fiscal
period. In fact, it is anticipated there will be a net decline of capital investment of something like 3 per cent this year following on the heels of a very substantial decline last year. But in the private sector it is predicted for the coming year that there will be a decline of something like 8 per cent.
It is clear that if the Government is going to accelerate Capital Projects of the kind that are the subject of this particular program, this is a very propitious moment to do it because we will not be crowding out private sector investment intentions. We will be putting in place projects that would have been undertaken in any case at some time during the decade but instead they will be brought forward into a nearer time frame. They will enable the Government to establish some basic fundamental economic infrastructure and, in turn, will be supportive of private sector recovery and investment when that comes.
Clearly, in terms of the over-all fiscal position, this is the way for the Government to proceed. But when we add to that the fact that we are suffering unreasonably and unacceptably high unemployment, that we have many construction workers unemployed in this country, that we have many suppliers and manufacturers working well under capacity, surely it behooves us also to create jobs in this period and to stimulate suppliers and the manufacturing sector of this country. That is exactly what this proposal does with this $2.4 billion investment.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may add a few more comments. My colleagues may have forgotten the basic criteria we used to select these projects. First of all, these are projects that were already planned for the departments in question, and second, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has added some very specific criteria. First, the project must be ready to start within the six-month period following the budget, and second, they must be completed for up to 60 or 70 per cent within the next two years. That is the accelerated process I was referring to.

I see we are approaching one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but I want to underline the over-all investment intention and the importance of it in terms of the budget itself. I cannot let this motion go unanswered with respect to these charges of pork-barrelling, as the Hon. Member says, and the accusation that none of this money is going into Tory ridings in the Atlantic Provinces.
These projects have been selected for their economic potential and importance. I will refer to a number of them which are going very specifically to Tory ridings in the Atlantic region. Shall I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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.
May 20, 1983



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when I stopped at one o'clock, I tried to situate our special recovery projects within the policy announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his budget speech. I gave the criteria we used to select these projects. I explained how they must be accelerated and how they would make a long-term contribution to the Canadian economy by creating permanent jobs as well as creating jobs in the short term.
1 would like to get back to the point raised by our hon. colleague from the riding of Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), when he accused us of applying partisan criteria in selecting recovery projects for the Maritime Provinces.


An Hon. Member:: He is not here.


Donald James Johnston: I believe he has left the House for the time being, but in any case, he accused us of not spending a nickel-those were his words-in Tory ridings in Nova Scotia, and in fact 1 think he said the Atlantic Provinces. Perhaps we should look at some of the details of this matter, Mr. Speaker.

When he said that these projects had not gone to any Conservative ridings I fear he had either not examined them or was reacting in a negative fashion to the program in question. When 1 look at some of the most important investments made under this program I find that there are a number of significant investments in Conservative ridings. As I explained, these are projects which were selected on the basis of economic criteria. They are projects which were moved ahead in the sense that they were brought into a nearer time frame. They are projects which Departments had already determined would be implemented at some time during this decade.
O)
For example, let us look at the announcement made earlier this week by our colleagues, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the regional Minister for New Brunswick, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc). On May 18, 1983, they announced the construction of the Maritime Forest Research Centre in Fredericton. That is a $22.5 million federal investment. The centre is to be located on property which is owned by the New Brunswick Government, and it is my recollection Mr. Speaker,-and I do not think 1 stand to be corrected on this point-that it is to be located in the riding of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) and it will serve three Maritime Provinces. Now I certainly do not think that that looks like a project which, as the Hon. Member has said, is one of partisan advantage.

In fact, the work to be carried out in Fredericton will be done as part of our program, the program I described this morning and which my hon. colleague for Dartmouth-Halifax East is criticizing. The centre in question is an intergrated research and training complex in Fredericton will bring
Supply
together a number of organizations in the Maritime Provinces with an interest in forestry. Thus, the Canadian Forestry Service from Environment Canada, the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources, the Forestry Research Group of the University of New Brunswick and the Maritime Forest Rangers School will take part in the project. This is indeed a very important project and also very important to the health of this industry. I fail to see how the Hon. Member can accuse us of being partisan about these choices. I see the Hon. Member has just taken his seat. Perhaps he would like to have an exchange of views with me during question period after my speech.

The Maritime Forestry Research Centre is one example which shows that there clearly is no partisan advantage.
1 see also that the Government has announced that it is prepared to contribute up to $18.25 million, another major investment of Canadian taxpayers' money, to build an Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown, contingent on equal contribution by the four Atlantic Provinces. Here again is a project which will benefit the entire Atlantic region, a project which is obviously fundamental to the. entire agricultural sector of the Atlantic region, and one of course which carries with it evident long-term economic benefits in the training of veterinarians for that part of Canada in particular, although 1 hope that we will see them in the rest of the country as well. This project is in response to a need which has been identified for some years of which all Members from the Atlantic Provinces are aware.
Again, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that surely we cannot be accused of partisan advantage in the selection of that particular project. My understanding is that it is to be built in Charlottetown and located in the riding of Hillsborough which, at last count, was not represented by a Member from this side of the House.
1 had the opportunity to exchange some comments with my hon friend, the Hon. Member for South Shore just before lunch, and my understanding is that on this very day, May 20, 1983, a small crafts harbour project totalling almost $4 million was announced; $4 million in small crafts harbour projects is a lot of money, and this project is apparently being announced in parts of the South Shore riding, the riding of the Member to whom I referred a moment ago. Again, this project will touch cities and towns represented by Members from both sides of the House. It is clear that when the Hon. Member says that not one Government nickel is spent in Tory ridings, he has not looked at the dossier and he is being partisan in his comments. I expect more than that from the Hon. Member.
I am pleased to see that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is in the House today because on May 13, 1983, my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey) and the Premier of Newfoundland announced some $45 million for road work in the Province of Newfoundland. Of this $45 million, some $12

May 20, 1983
Supply
million will go to the Conception Bay South Arterial, which, if 1 am not mistaken, is in the riding of the Hon. Member for St. John's East. I see him nodding his head in the affirmative, and I am sure that he is very pleased with that initiative.
1 would like to make another point because I feel that it is good to kill two birds with one stone when one is allotted so little time to speak. I believe I have a moment or so left, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East indicated that the Government was neglecting such things as strengthening the transportation system, and he referred specifically to highways. 1 can refer to two major highway projects, the one in Newfoundland that I just referred to, and Route 11 in New Brunswick, a second major highway initiative. I would point out that I am looking at a headline from the St. John's Daily News, May 13, 1983, which reads:
Peckford and Rompkey together: SWEETNESS, LIGHT AND $45M. FOR ROADS!
This again is an example of the Province and the federal Government successfully coming together and financing a very important infrastructure project in that Province.
I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East is disappointed that there were perhaps no specific projects allotted to his own riding. I am sure that many of us would share that disappointment. None of these projects, 1 might add, have been allocated to my riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount. I am sure that there are many Members from both sides of the House who have not had any of these Special Recovery Capital Projects allotted to their particular ridings, but that is not to say that other projects will not be of substantial benefit to their ridings because, 1 would suggest, any project which is good for Nova Scotia is good for Dartmouth-Halifax East. 1 am sure that my friends from the other side of the House would agree with me.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I invite the distinguished Minister to rise in his place and read us a complete list of the small craft harbour projects in the four Atlantic Provinces and in eastern Quebec. He could table the list if it is too large for him to deal with. I wonder if the Minister would entertain that request.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to entertain that request when all the projects are announced. In fact, it is my intention to ensure that all projects are brought to the attention of all Members of the House. It would be difficult for me to enumerate them at the moment. I am not sure if in fact they have all been announced. I mentioned that some projects were announced today for the South Shore riding of Nova Scotia. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that had nothing to do with my speaking on the subject today. I did not know until last night that I would be doing so.
I have no objection to complying with the Hon. Member's request. If the inference that I am to draw from it is that in eastern Quebec, all the small craft harbour projects are in Liberal constituencies, I would have to agree with that.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I too direct a question to the Minister on the subject of small craft harbours. One of the major problems that appears to exist with this project is that no priority list has ever been published of those harbours which should be developed. When an area finds out that it is to receive funds for small craft harbour project, that news suddenly bounds out of the blue when a Cabinet Minister announces it. But there does not appear to be any indication of what harbours are going to be developed and what is the priority listing of the many, many harbours that require federal assistance.
If the Minister is prepared to accommodate the request of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), I wonder if he in fact would be prepared to provide a complete list of harbours which require major renovations costing $0.5 million and up, and what the Government's priority list would be for some of those harbours so that the people who are depending on them can do some economic planning and development in relation to it?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have overall responsibility for the implementation of this Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. That does not mean that I have any responsibility other than as a Minister chairing the committee for selection of projects. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated on the night of the budget, these projects had already been chosen. I should say that there have to be feasibility studies associated with some, so there may have been some changes since. But effectively the projects were chosen on the basis of the Departments' priorities, what the Departments brought forward.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for small craft harbour projects. I am not in a position today to provide a priorization of that Department. I think the question should be more properly put to the responsible Minister when he is in the House. Since small craft harbours have been chosen for this particular program, it is my responsibility to ensure that they move forward quickly and efficiently, and that they are brought in on time and within budget.
I am pleased the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) rises on this particular point. When we talk about partisan advantage, there is work being done on a small craft harbour on the West Coast. It is perfectly evident, quite unfortunately, that that work is not being done in ridings which are occupied by Liberal Members of Parliament.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question. Since he mentioned small craft harbours and since the item is now under his attention, would he consider the representations which were made by the former Liberal candidate at the provincial level who is now a member of the town council of St. Andrews respecting the small craft harbour requirement there both for fisheries and the tourist business? Would he also consider the application of the mayor of the town of St. George, who aspired to a provincial Liberal
May 20, 1983

nomination, to improve the harbour in St. George, again for both tourist and fishing purposes? These two harbours have been downgraded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and will receive no attention unless it is from the Hon. Minister. I sincerely hope that he takes these two under consideration, in view of the number of trips each has made on behalf of his community and his small craft harbour.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, again 1 reiterate that the program is not one for which I have responsibility, except within the narrow context of the administration of the Special Recovery Capital Projects. I will be more than pleased to bring the representations of my friend to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) who is not in the House at the present time.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Hon. Minister. It has been pointed out that small craft harbours seem to be either on the East Coast, as the previous speaker said, or on the West Coast. I would point out with respect- and ask for confirmation of my information-that the riding of St. Catharines, which is a Conservative riding, received a grant of $1.6 million as announced last Friday. Indeed this is a neighbouring riding to mine, and I would suggest that the grant is helpful not only to that particular riding but to the entire Niagara Peninsula. What we are looking at here is a waterway-


J. Michael Forrestall: We are talking about jobs.


Gilbert Parent: Wait a second.


J. Michael Forrestall: We are not talking about your little, picayune question.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to anyone calling my area picayune. I cannot let this go unanswered. He puts down not only my riding but the riding of one of his own colleagues. 1 am simply asking the Minister for confirmation that this is the greatest inland waterway in the world and that it is also being given consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Gilbert Parent: What about my answer?


An Hon. Member:: It was a picayune question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister would accept a suggestion. Would the Minister recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), that Members of Parliament from both coasts and from the inland areas, but from the Atlantic Provinces especially, be canvassed as to the priorities in their constituencies, just as Members are canvassed with regard to the Canada Community Development Program? If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would only do that, he would go a long way toward eliminating the accusation or the seeming prospect of this
Supply
program being used for partisan political purposes. I offer that to the Minister, whom I respect, as a serious suggestion.


Donald James Johnston: I take that as a suggestion. I do not think it is my place to decide how these projects are chosen by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I would point out that the whole small craft harbours program we are now discussing, in the context of the entire program, is one relatively small part of the $2.4 billion projects distributed across the country. As I demonstrated in my earlier comments, some of the major elements of the program in Atlantic Canada are the college in Charlottetown and the Maritime Forestry Research Centre in ridings occupied by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the Hon. Member for St. John's East is in fact a very serious one, and I would like to add to the seriousness of it. The new innovation for price requests, processes and procedures for determining how these projects will be carried out is of some concern to us. Could the Minister find some way of advising the entrepreneurial or industrial community whether or not this is in fact government policy? If it is, would he take into consideration the real difficulty of Atlantic firms, entrepreneurs and business people in the Atlantic region, even where they are successful with respect to costing proposals to the Government either through tender or through a call for prices? Since we are in fact dealing with a Special Recovery Program and we are trying to look at the short, medium and long-term, would the Minister take up with his colleague the proposition that it is important in the final implementation of the program to take into account the seepage back into central Canada? I am referring to the very narrow portion of it, but I could expand it to include, for example-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for Economic Development, and having responsibility in terms of the administration of the Program, I can say to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East-that he can rest assured the processes established by the Treasury Board as part of the regulations are being used with respect to these projects. When we talk about fast tracking or-

-or "la voie express" as they say in French, we are merely referring to mechanisms we have introduced for the purpose of accelerating the process, but we shall still be observing existing regulations and procedures. Of course, we are going to maximize work on the projects in each region. So let us hope that entrepreneurs in the Atlantic region will have a fair share of the work available in those provinces, and the same applies to the Western Provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and so forth.
Again, we are going to stick to existing regulations, and we are just going to speed up these projects within a closely monitored and, I believe, very effective system.

May 20, 1983
Supply


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there is no chance for one more brief question, but maybe-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I note that a number of Members have not yet been recognized during the period for questions and answers. Some Hon. Member may seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the period of questions and answers, if he so sees fit. However, in the position of the Chair I have no alternative but to hold it to within the ten minutes, a period of time which has already, incidentally, gone past that.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in commencing debate on this subject, 1 might put a proposition through my speech to the Minister. That proposition is that if we put the partisan questions aside and say that the improvements which are being made in the region are certainly desirable and in the communities' benefit, there is still, in the observations which are made, one major problem and that is, with the way that the Government chooses to announce the programs. It causes confusion and no small amount of animosity on the part of constituents. To use only one example, and there are many others, what you have is a situation where the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans-and I certainly do not want to criticize the Minister-but his Department is responsible for small craft harbours; the previous speaker's Department is responsible for implementing them; and a third Minister travels around making the actual announcements. Unfortunately, what we have is absolute chaos in the situation. No one knows what is going on and people wonder where projects come from. They seem to drop out of *he blue. Those with great needs are certainly left aside to v ther.
What might be a far better approach to this process is, where projects needed development, whether they were small craft harbours, highway projects, airport developments or wharf and dock transport improvements, that somewhere a priority list of these be developed and that people be given an indication of when those projects could be expected to come on stream. In that way, they would be given an opportunity to plan for those projects. Under the present circumstances we have seen quite a number of projects which seem to drop directly out of the blue, and subsequent planning in some areas has to be "hothoused" in order to get that money nailed down in that community. It has meant that we have had a less than desirable situation. Therefore, one of the things which definitely has to happen is better communication and some indication in advance of what projects are in the works and what their priority is on the list.
The debate today is on the subject, of course, of Atlantic Canada. The motion states, and I quote:
That this House recognizes the need for long-term solutions to the economic difficulties facing Atlantic Canada and, although welcoming the injection of funds provided under the Special Recovery Program, rejects the manner in which those funds are being allocated particularly the decision to use partisan advantage rather than need as the basis for the provision of funding, and
condemns the government for its failure to adopt policies which would create lasting economic growth with permanent jobs and investment in Atlantic Canada.
It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, to have this resolution coming from members of the Official Opposition who are committed to having no long-term planning. I would be very interested as time goes on in this debate to hear their explanation of what appears to be a reversal of policy. Certainly, we in the New Democratic Party are extremely concerned about Atlantic Canada and the kind of abuse inflicted on that region by the present Liberal Government. And certainly the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada is higher, and has been higher consistently in this region, than in any other region in this country.
Reflecting back on the March labour force statistics, it is worth mentioning with a bit of cynicism that it is showing an unemployment rate in the order of 15 per cent to 20 per cent in Atlantic Canada when in fact the labour force statistics have been jerry-rigged to reflect a much lower level of unemployment than that which exists. The bet would be that it is in the order of 25 per cent to 30 per cent. If we threw in an equation for underemployment, then certainly people who live in Atlantic Canada have been very badly served by this Liberal Government.
It is a bad situation and I believe you can point to the recent examples of hostility between the federal Minister of Energy and the provincial Minister of Energy in Newfoundland. That is one example of a bad situation. Certainly the kind of relationship which exists in some of those areas is not conducive to creating a positive climate in which economic development could occur. I have a feeling that we might see a worse situation with a Conservative federal Goverment and a Conservative provincial Government. Nevertheless, what we are faced with now would have to be described as a bad situation.
One aspect of this that is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the philosophical positions which are used to approach the problems, the philosophy from which we would approach the problem of Atlantic Canada, or any other region in the country. It is ironic to watch in this House the gamesmanship which is played between the Liberal Members of the Government and the Conservative Members of the Official Opposition. They really have a philosophy which is not consistent with what is proposed in this motion. Time and time again the Conservative Members of this House have said. "Let the private sector do it. The private sector is the only one which can guide this country, shape its future, and provide economic benefits." Reflected in the Liberal budget and the comments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is that the engine of economic recovery will be the private sector.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Raymond John Skelly: It is not "right on", as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) says, for Atlantic Canada. His riding is one which is particularly blessed, with an enormous number-
May 20, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I just heard my riding taken in vain. I was sitting here, listening attentively to the Hon. Member's speech. All of a sudden he says I have made a comment about something he was saying. I made no such comment.


Raymond John Skelly: I had assumed indirectly it was the kind of comment which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre made.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is totally uncalled for, and I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that comment.


Raymond John Skelly: In that case, I would have to withdraw it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation, going back to the philosophies in this House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, no. I feel I have to intervene. I happen to be personally aware of the fact that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) did not make an intervention with respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I believe the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is entitled to be protected on the record of the House of Commons. He made no such intervention. It is not normal for the Chair to provide evidence, but in this case I feel that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, if he has stated that he did not make such an intervention, is owed that acknowledgement.


Raymond John Skelly: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks 1 said I would withdraw my comment if I was in error.


Walter David Baker: Your microphone was not
on.


Raymond John Skelly: 1 am sorry, the microphone maybe was not on. I just said that 1 withdrew the comment after being corrected by the Chair. The situation which I was discussing was the philosophical thinking of both Parties, the Liberal Government and the Conservative Opposition. Both have said, "We are going to leave it alone. The private sector will be the engine of growth." It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there really appear to be only two approaches in this country for strengthening and developing the Canadian economy, 1 would suggest: the philosophy which underpins the approach of the Conservatives and the Liberal Government, "Let the private sector do it all", and the approach which the NDP is advocating, that there be some consistent, rigorous long-term planning for regions of this country and that there be a partnership between the private sector and the Government. Certainly that kind of approach is going to be far more effective and constructive in Atlantic Canada than those we have had to date. Let the record speak for itself. After decades of Liberal Government, Atlantic Canada still has the highest rate of unemployment in this country. That region still suffers from enormous difficulties in obtaining a stable and developing economy. Unfortunately, over that period of time it has also been subjected to difficulties with Conservative provincial Governments.
Supply
To pursue this philosophical approach a little further, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that a former Leader of the Conservative Party, during his swan song at a convention which elected the current former Conservative Leadei, had said that anyone who suggests the Conservative Party is different from the Liberal Party is doing the Conservative Party a great disservice. He said those two Parties believed in the same thing, that the Liberal Party was basically incompetent and the Conservatives would do it better. Now, I do not take exception to that because the fruits of the efforts of the Liberal Government indicate tremendous incompetence, a small piece of which we were just discussing this afternoon. But certainly the Conservative Party has not had a great track record. There was R. B. Bennett as Prime Minister decades ago, and the former Member for Prince Albert and his Government which proved itself incapable of developing an approach in this country which worked. Certainly the current former Leader of the Conservative Party did not demonstrate, when in power, a great competence for handling the very serious problems of this country.


Walter David Baker: We will never have the chance to judge you.


Raymond John Skelly: The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton says he will never have the chance to judge us.


John Leslie Evans: That is true.


Raymond John Skelly: We will see, when the people get fed up with the failures of those two Parties. What we may require is a new approach-


Jack Wendele Shields: The Liberal Party West is speaking.


Raymond John Skelly: Both Parties seem to be rather unified in their approach, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the problem we are discussing today is the approach to economic recovery in Atlantic Canada. In its philosophical and policy approach to this problem, the New Democratic Party would adopt on a long-term basis the approach outlined in this motion. The Party's record in election campaigns is very consistent. The Government of Canada must adopt a full employment policy. There just has to be a policy put in force by law in which targets are delineated, goals set and a commitment made to full employment. Unfortunately, we do not have a Government in power which believes that that can or should be done. Nor do we have an Official Opposition which believes it can or should be done. Until they take that kind of policy approach, it will not be done and Atlantic Canada will continue to have the highest unemployment rates in this country.


Walter David Baker: You have a Government in Saskatchewan which takes that approach.


Raymond John Skelly: The next item, of course, is tax reform. This Party has talked at great length about tax reform, and I have to laugh at the efforts of a very prominent Member from

May 20, 1983
Supply
Atlantic Canada, the previous Minister of Finance, who came before this Elouse with three budgets and created total chaos in this country in the name of tax reform. An absolute joke. We have seen many efforts at tax reform, but unfortunately the tax reform of the Official Opposition and the Government is one in which you reform taxes for the rich to leave money in their pockets so they can go out and make more money, and hope some of it trickles down to those individuals who really need federal Government assistance. Mr. Speaker, tax reform pays the bills in this country. It distributes wealth in this country. It shakes the structure of the Canadian economy. But this tax regime we have does not do that. It does not give a break to Canadians generally; it gives a break to a very small minority of people and leaves the rest hung out to dry. This is one of the major problems with the shaping of the Atlantic regional economy. Until you develop a long-term plan based on full employment, the commitment to which is based on a tax regime which will structure the economy of a Province in such a way that it is a desirable place in which to build and nurture industry, that is not going to happen. And the question of the redistribution of wealth is a very important aspect of that problem.
With regard to taking a long-term approach, Mr. Speaker, another thing that the New Democratic Party has brought before this House is the question of an industrial strategy. What we have got from the Liberal Party and what we will get more of from the Conservative Party is the shot-in-the dark approach to economic planning. They have both stood in the House and criticized the need for the Government to become involved in concentrated, serious long-term planning. We are again back to the engine of growth being the private sector; the plans and goals of the private sector are the ones that should be nurtured and fostered. The end result of that is that we will have economic development in Toronto and Montreal, and the rest of the country will be left hung out to dry. I see my old friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) sitting busily in the House today, and maybe we can go through the question of an industrial strategy once again.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One year is enough.


Raymond John Skelly: That is, the question of shipbuilding. I know the Minister lends both ears to this very vital question and that of the need for a Canadian merchant fleet. He is paying vigorous attention now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could repeat everything you said.


Raymond John Skelly: Shipbuilding is extremely important to the Atlantic Provinces. But we do not know where the Government is going with this issue. The Government came before the House and made a policy statement that it was going to extend the customs boundary to 200 miles in order to try to capture offshore benefits for Canadians. It was going to remove the preferential treatment of Commonwealth and developing nations so that Canadians could have an opportunity to bid on and build these ships. But unfortunately that is a very passive policy without the force of law. The Minister of State for
Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) says he will be drafting a Bill, but we have nothing before the House. The Government could afford to become far more active on the question of shipbuilding.
We have two vessels to be refitted, the Nipigon and the Athabasca. It is a small amount of work, but we have this crazy system throughout the country where everyone goes out and spends an enormous amount of money to bid on that work when only one yard will get the work. There must be a way of rationalizing our shipbuilding and repairing capability in such a way as to eliminate this enormous amount of wasted effort so that yards can plan on work and make investments in leading edge technology and maintain trained crews. But in absolute and rigid adherence to the free enterprise of Adam Smith, the Government has taken the approach of letting the yards go out and bid on and count on work that only one or two yards will get.


Mr. Huntington:: Tell us about the state enterprise in-


Raymond John Skelly: The Athabasca-I hear the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) hollering about state enterprise. It is not state enterprise. I think if that Party yanks itself into the twentieth century and takes a look around, it will see many other successful nations which do not use state enterprise but use partnerships in long-term planning with private industry. In that they have serviced their populations well. I hope that the Hon. Member will join us in examining some of those opportunities.
However, to return to the subject of shipbuilding, we certainly have some very serious problems. Two sets of companies across this country are considering the frigate program which, I presume, is in the order of $2.6 billion. There are yards which are absolutely desperate for the frigate program, yet the Government is back to its old bidding system, and many yards will lose out. The one sector in which Atlantic Canada has an opportunity is the shipbuilding sector. There is a great deal of suspicion that Atlantic Canada will see none of that work appearing in that area.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How do you know?


Raymond John Skelly: How do we know? Well, we will find out very soon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, you will find out.


Raymond John Skelly: I see that I am coming to the end of my allotted time. I would like to suggest that there are many industrial sectors involving shipbuilding, a merchant fleet, transportation and ports development and, as my colleague mentioned today, the automotive industry, in which we could find many opportunities if there were a commitment to planning and partnership between Government and industry and some determination to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any questions or comments? Debate.
May 20, 1983


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of Atlantic Canada that only in passing and in the last gasping breath did the Minister of Powell River get off his philosophical diatribe and approach the subject matters which are of concern to Atlantic Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Fred Alward McCain: It is of no value to talk in those terms-


Walter David Baker: That's not a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: A point of order it certainly is. I am not a Minister nor a member of the Treasury benches, and I am certainly not a man of the cloth.


Fred Alward McCain: The Church and the Government are fortunate in that regard. We do not have to look forward to either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the matter is ever so much more serious that that. I would like to draw attention to the Chronicle-Herald issue of Wednesday, May 18, which printed the full text of the remarks of Mr. Robbie Shaw, Vice-President, Administration and Finance, Dalhousie University. The remarks which are recorded in the newspaper are those which he recently delivered to the Rotary Club of Wolfville. He touches on several matters, but among others he mentioned the fact that there was appointed, at one point in time, a group of people in Government to arrange for a National Economic Development Conference. Mr. Shaw was appointed or hired by Mr. Pitfield to undertake or participate in the development of this Conference and to the concept of cooperation between the various segments of the economy of Canada.
1 think it is rather interesting to note that Mr. Shaw was very much surprised when he was retained in the same capacity under the Clark administration and therefore has had considerable bipartisan participation in Canadian policy and the subject matter of our economics. He drew attention to many matters, and I would love to have 40 minutes in which to speak, in which case 1 would read his speech because 1 think it is something which should be in the record of this House in full. However, time does not permit that.
In his address, he stated:
-there are many fundamental problems remaining in the Canadian economy.
He listed five. He stated:
-Unemployment is projected to remain at unprecedented levels for several years, in spite of substantially improved economic activity.
-Canada is experiencing a severe decline in productivity relative to many of its trade competitors.
-Recently, heavy international competition has developed for the sale of our natural resources such as nickel and coal.
-Developing countries are providing growing competition in the sale of many of our traditional manufactured goods.
These are some of the problems which he outlined and which we must address. He also pointed out that we are in an adversarial position, and one of the paragraphs is headlined: Setting "adversarial". What it means is that the various economic forces in this nation are in an adversarial position and are not cooperating in the direction of Canadian economy,
Supply
which will correct that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) might correct and all the political Premiers in Atlantic Canada never can correct until we get away from the adversarial situation.
Let me quote again from the paragraph under that heading:
Virtually every major developed country in the world has a tradition of having some form of structure that formally permits the three economic players to meet on an equal ground to exchange information. In most cases, this has resulted in the building of some form of consensus on major problems affecting economic development in the country.
Even in the United States, which has less formal tripartite structures than virtually any other country in the western world, achieves a greater degree of meeting of minds in dealing with government;-
This also includes dealings with labour and business.
When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office, Mr. Shaw was then dismissed from his position in the development of the economic conference, a job which he was hired to do. After the election of 1980, he stated:
All initiatives regarding the National Economic Development Conference and the establishment of a formal consultative process, came to a halt.
That was a rather tragic remark made by someone hired by Mr. Pitfield and retained by Mr. Clark. He went on to outline problems which we should recognize as follows:
1.	That we recognize that we have some substantial economic and social problems in Canada; problems that won't be solved by a simple international economic recovery. We must recognize that these problems will require more open-minded and imaginative thinking by management and labour in this country.
2.	We must recognize that business, government and labour are becoming increasingly interdependent on each other.
I wish I could expand upon that, but time does not permit it due to the specifics which I think I must address. It is a philosophy which I have tried to enunciate in the years that I have been in Ottawa. Unfortunately, I do not have the profile to obtain a full page in the Chronicle-Herald or any other newspaper in Canada where I could state that the economy of Canada can go nowhere until such point in time as the Government, management and labour do in fact sit down around the same table and assess our economic problems one by one, but not as a sector, because I say to Your Honour that there is no way that every mine in Canada can pay the same wage as every other mine in Canada.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Absolutely right.


Fred Alward McCain: It may be necessary for different arrangements to be made between business, Government and labour in individual circumstances throughout the economy of Canada. That is what this man is saying.


John Leslie Evans: Good point.


Fred Alward McCain: Until we get that in place, we shall go nowhere in this country's economic development or in the reduction of unemployment. He states, as the Government has stated, that unemployment will remain at unbearably high levels for several years to come. It is on that basis that the Government of Canada should begin to address the Atlantic

May 20, 1983
Supply
area and its needs and address them with the reasonableness which a tripartite consideration would extend to each problem as it arose.
I regret very much that the Minister who spoke this morning has absented himself from the House, because I think he has a perception and an understanding of that principle, but does not have the prerogative of introducing it to a Government with policies such as those of the one presently to Your Honour's right.
1 would have to say again that the moneys which are being spent supposedly for permanent benefit to this country and for the creation of short-term work have not extended themselves to the smaller communities of Canada. 1 recognize and appreciate the allocation of funds in Atlantic Canada which he mentioned. 1 also support the position taken by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
While some of these expenditures are purely for Government edification and do not necessarily reflect the needs of the community, I approve of the forest structure which is going up in Fredericton and the school being built in Charlottetown. 1 would point out, however, that the moneys allocated for the school in Charlottetown rested in the office of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for five years, I believe. That money remained unspent while he would not go down and negotiate a location acceptable to all. He sat inattentively in his seat for nearly five years after allocating the money. Therefore I do not think the Government has much to brag about in that regard.
1 raised two issues with the Minister in question and I wish to repeat those now. They concern small craft harbours in Atlantic Canada and in my constituency of Carleton-Char-lotte, in particular. Those harbours have been mercilessly and almost criminally neglected. The two harbours which I mentioned, St. George and St. Andrews, are important tourist attraction centres. They need those wharves both for the benefit of the fishermen and the tourists. They have been classified as unnecesary by the Department of Fisheries but have been promoted by myself, my constituency and the Government of New Brunswick. Wharves have been denied to those harbours by successive Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and 1 suggest that the Minister now responsible for the expenditure of this developmental money put a permanent asset in these two communities as a result of the representations by their mayors. That would not be porkbarrelling; it would be recognizing a need.
A committee has been appointed under the Hon. Member from Cornwall whose ministry I cannot identify since they have been shuffled to the point of incomprehension. That committee will experiment with the processing and marketing of forest products. I am concerned that no one has chosen to address the subject matter which is most pertinent to the ongoing health of that industry. It is the forest management program. Once again, the Government has criminally neglected its responsibility, which has been under Government
authority for decades, to undertake the research and development aspects of the forest industry. While the pulp and paper industry has perhaps conducted most of the research in that area, the research of forest management has basically been under federal responsibility and has been neglected since its reduction in the budget introduced by the Liberal Government in late 1978. An increase in research funds has not been reinstituted and I cannot think of any better use of this developmental money which is at loose ends than funding such a forest management program. I only hope that the full approval for the forest complex will be achieved in the very near future.
At this time I must briefly mention the neglect of the needs of the potato industry. The industry was neglected by the Minister of Agriculture who was advised in late March or early April of the problem arising in New Brunswick in this regard. He was asked to declare it a disaster area. Let me make a final suggestion to the Minister which I believe he could accommodate rather quickly if he chose to do so.
Since the Province of New Brunswick has had to fill the void which was left by federal responsibility, I submit that the Minister should become the co-guarantor with the farmers of the money loaned by the New Brunswick Farm Adjustment Program. That program is financing the planting of crops in New Brunswick. Not only do I believe that this approach is the only easy way out, but it is now the practical step for the Government to take. It does come within the jurisdiction and capability of the Government under various enabling legislation which has been passed in the House for ministerial discretion. I ask that the Minister follow that route.
The Minister told the House that he was seeking a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture in New Brunswick. That was nearly two weeks ago but no meeting has yet been held. I can assure the House that the farmers of New Brunswick are waiting for the Minister of Agriculture of Canada to have that meeting and that it be meaningful.
Another area of concern in Atlantic Canada is transportation. It is an issue which has not been studied. This question applies to Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. It is a problem that affects all of Atlantic Canada. Apparently the Government does not feel that this subject deserves consideration. The only action I have seen taken in the ten years I have been in Ottawa is the withdrawal of subsidies. Those subsidies have been withdrawn under the heavy club of the Government saying that while it will contribute small amounts for our highways it will withdraw subsidies in other areas, leaving no room for negotiation. That was essentially the position presented to the Premiers of Atlantic Canada as certain subsidies were surrendered.
The MFRA has become inadequate for any Province in Atlantic Canada. It is indefensible by any conscientious Atlantic Member of the House of Commons. If billion of dollars are going to be spent in permanent development for Canada, it is high time that transportation be addressed whether it is in form of assistance to the industry or development of harbours, railroads or other infrastructure. There is no better place to spend money on a permanent, long-term basis
May 20, 1983

than on the roads of Newfoundland, the narrow gauge railways of Newfoundland or in other port, rail and road facilities that are required. I am amazed that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River has never been to Atlantic Canada and therefore cannot know of our transportation problems.
Before I am critized for my next remarks, 1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the remarks I made on the borrowing Bill. I must briefly address the problems in the administration of the bilingual policy of the Government. While there is a contractual option in most contracts for private enterprise on federal Government property which may demand bilingualism, 1 must say that it has not been nationally demanded. However, it is being demanded in New Brunswhich. People who presently hold jobs there will find themselves unemployed because of a very harsh interpretation of the capability of the Department of Transport and other Government departments to enforce bilingualism in Quebec City versus how it is enforced in other areas of Canada.
Let me give the most recent example. A young lady who has been a temporary employee of the Department of National Revenue has applied for a permanent position which is becoming vacant. As a temporary employee she has attempted to get bilingual training. It was not available. She has privately undertaken to become bilingual and has gone as far as she can with records and tutoring. She was asked to take bilingual test and was told that she failed. Having failed, she was advised that she will not have another opportunity to take that test.
Since time is short, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to refer to my remarks on the borrowing Bill before criticizing my remarks. This is not an equitable application of the bilingual policy. As I said in the debate on the borrowing Bill, unilingual persons from St. Quentin, New Brunswick or unilingual persons from Florenceville, New Brunswick should not be denied opportunity in the public employ if they merit the job. If we are to have a bilingual civil service capability, the onus is upon the Government of Canada to train those people to be bilingual and to make sure they are posted within their capability. It is not right to say to a person from St. Quentin that he cannot work for the Government because he does not speak English. It is not right to say to a young lady in Woodstock that she cannot work for the Government because she cannot speak French.
Let us get away from the heavy-handed application of bilingualism. Let us be realistic. I was promised in 1972, 1973 and 1974 that the Government would not delineate between applicants with bilingual and non-bilingual capability. I was betrayed. The little girl in Woodstock is betrayed because I told her years ago she would have the opportunity in the federal service to become bilingual and that she would not be denied a job. I was betrayed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, debate.
Supply


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I have read the motion. I feel that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is not really serious in this motion but has simply put it forward in order that we may put on the record the needs of the Atlantic Provinces and the responses to those needs. I feel there has been a response, and a good response, to the needs of the Atlantic area.
I want to start by talking about the fishery.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When an Hon. Member suggests that something is done in this Chamber facetiously and without seriousness, particularly when it is directed at me, I must take some exception. Could the distinguished Minister from Newfoundland reconsider the allegation that motions put forward in this Chamber by Members of Parliament are not, in fact, put forward in anything other than under the most desperate and serious of situations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is no doubt that Hon. Members ought not to ascribe motives to other Hon. Members; but I want to point out to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) that it is a common characteristic of debate in the House of Commons that some Hon. Members will refer to a motion as specious or something in that order. I do not want to find a question of privilege at this moment. I will leave it to the Minister to see whether and how he wants to handle the issue. But if the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East persists, then I will give due consideration to his question of privilege.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify my remarks. I have no doubt about the serious intent of the Hon. Member to draw attention to the needs and the need for long-term solutions to the economic difficulties facing Atlantic Canada. I recognize that we should be talking about that. I recognize that is a serious motion. I recognize his sincerity in bringing it forward and encouraging this debate. I welcome that and I congratulate him for doing so. However, the line with which I had some problems is the one that reads "partisan advantage rather than need". What I want to show, if I can, is that we have addressed needs. They have been real needs and we have addressed them, I think, in depth.
I want to talk about the fishery first. I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is not here because I want to pay tribute to him. I had thought that we were not going to find a worthy successor to the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but I feel we have. If we read the press coming from Newfoundland, people are saying much the same thing. Negotiations have been going on in the past few days between the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries and my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, with regard to restructuring. The Minister announced recently $100 million for the Atlantic fisheries. This is probably the

May 20, 1983
Supply
most important industry we have in the Atlantic region. It means not just jobs for our people but involves the very culture and lifestyle, the way of life, of our people.
The fishery is a $1.3 billion business. It is a major contributor not only to the economy of the five eastern Provinces but to the economy of this nation as a whole. We are the world's largest exporter of fish products. It also provides jobs for 48,000 people in the processing sector. There are approximately 48,000 fishermen divided between full-time and part-time fishermen. That is to sketch in the importance of that industry in the eastern Provinces of Canada.
The $100 million for the fishing industry in the five eastern Provinces was split up among the various Provinces. It can be said and shown that this money was divided according to need. An amount of $24 million will be spent in my own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to do wharf repairs, harbour improvement, breakwater repairs over the next little while and on two marine service centres. This amount of $24 million, is about a tripling of the annual budget that we have had in small craft harbours over the last little while.


James Aloysius McGrath: And not a dollar for St. John's.


Bill Rompkey: It is very important that this work be done. The work is going to be done. In Nova Scotia spending is going to be about $25 million in various parts of that Province.


J. Michael Forrestall: Name them.


Bill Rompkey: In New Brunswick an amount of $10 million will be spent on fisheries infrastructure. Fishing unloading and handling systems are to be installed at 28 different locations.
An amount of $8.8 million will be spent in Prince Edward Island for various harbour reconstruction and development projects.
In the Province of Quebec there will be $25 million for a variety of fisheries, infrastructure projects, including harbour improvements, fish unloading equipment, marine service centres and bait depots. In these Provinces a total of $100 million is allocated for the most important industry that we have.
The Atlantic fishery envelope also includes funds to build a modern electronic acoustic sweep vessel which will be used to survey shipping and navigation channels. Many of the seasonal ports on the East Coast require this annual depth service before they can be opened up to ships in the Spring.
In addition to the Special Recovery Program the Government of Canada will also invest $71 million in the Quebec fishing industry under provisions of the Quebec-Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence Economic Development Plan. This package comprises a wide variety of projects to get underway this year, carrying on for a five-year period. These projects are aimed at the improvement of the fishing fleet, upgrading productivity, ensuring the production of consistently high-quality fish and seafood products. That is the recovery program. That is to put new money into the fishery to try to create jobs and to include the infrastructure.
You will recall also, Mr. Speaker, that last February we announced the Government's commitment to invest almost $200 million to put into effect the recommendations of the
Kirby task force report, another additional $200 million for the Atlantic fishery. Those sums do not include the funds which the Government of Canada in all likelihood will be contributing to the restructuring of the companies in the Atlantic region. That process is now going on. Complex discussions are taking place as to how that restructuring might be done. I hope we will have a solution very soon to meet the needs which will be satisfactory to all concerned.
These are steps taken to improve the most important industry that we have in the Atlantic area, but that is not all that has been done. Under the recovery program additional funds have been allocated. I was surprised to hear my hon. colleague from New Brunswick who spoke a few moments ago saying that somehow we were not concerned about infrastructure in the Atlantic Provinces, and where we were there were some strings attached. I want to say to him that we have just signed with the Government of Newfoundland a $45 million roads agreement. It has no strings attached. It is for roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, roads that need to be done. I do not apologize for any of those roads. I do not apologize because sometimes Liberals happen to represent areas of need. I do not apologize for that. That is a fact. For example, the Labrador highway has been a dream of people in Newfoundland for a long while, not only a dream of mine but a dream of the Premier of Newfoundland and the dream of the Premier before him and the Premier before him. Two of those two Premiers were Conservatives. This is not a partisan matter; it is a question of need and things that need to be done.
Let us look at the distribution of the funds. There was Conception Bay highway in an area of Newfoundland represented federally and provincially by Conservatives. Other roads were constructed in areas of need which will contribute to the economic well-being and tourism of the Province. It is high time they were constructed and I am glad they have been. They were built under an agreement that my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), put in place with Newfoundland. Of course, it was based upon the concept of multi modal transportation and of building for the future, not for the past. We put in place the things that needed to be done. We modified some transportation patterns, some sea routes and some sea transportation patterns which needed to be done. I pay tribute to the Minster of Transport for his sensitivity and response to the needs of my Province.
In addition to the $45 million roads agreement, we signed a $10 million agreement for the improvement of the Corner Brook harbour and to put in place the infrastructure needed in that great port in order to attract sea traffic to it. Without it Corner Brook would not be able to compete. I am sure transportation critics opposite will agree that sea traffic is the most cost effective in the long run for my Province and for the Atlantic Provinces.
We have put in place the Corner Brook harbour development, which of course is building on other infrastructure
May 20, 1983

projects of the Minister of Transport. For example, $12 million has been spent for a new airport in St. Anthony on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland. Also $77 million was put into the Newfoundland railway to provide it with a five-year period in which to see whether we could make it economic. We are making it economic, we are making it viable, and it is starting to work. The Minister of Transport has had the vision and foresight to say, "We will give it a try". That is happening and we will try to make it work. Another $23 million was put into airstrips along the Labrador coast.
Some can say that it is partisan if they like, but these are people who are in need and up to now have had some of the worst transportation infrastructure anywhere in the country. Again, I do not apologize for responding to that kind of need. It was $23 million spent to bring Labrador into the twentieth century and to give it up to date transportation services.
Also I would like to point to the other measures taken by the Minister of Transport and by the Government in the Atlantic Provinces. For example, a new air terminal building and runway was constructed at St. John's airport at a cost of $2 million. A Coast Guard college was erected in Cape Breton at a cost of $17 million. These are projects throughout the Atlantic Provinces. Approximately $15 million was spent for port development on the Miramichi River. There was $5.5 million spent on a federal wharf in Digby. The time had come for all these projects, they needed to be done. The idea is to move forward on projects for which we did not have the money until now and to create jobs before the tax measures had a chance to take their bite. I pay tribute to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and again to the Minister of Transport for their foresight.
With regard to partisanship, 1 would like to refer to several other ongoing projects which were done because of need, not as a result of partisan consideration. For example, a $55 million Arctic Marine Vessel Research Institute is being built in St. John's. We can add to that the $27 million or 60 per cent of the cost of a new fisheries college in St. John's. These can hardly be said to be partisan projects because they are in ridings not held by us and they are educational institutions. As everyone knows, education is a provincial responsibility, but there is a need for these facilities. If we do not do it, Newfoundlanders will not be able to participate in a meaningful way in offshore development. Yes, the money might come, but jobs will not be had unless people have skills. This is what the fisheries college will provide; it will give Newfoundlanders skills. This is being done with federal dollars.
I am pleased and proud that the Government of Canada is responding in this way. The Marine Arctic Vessel Research Institute, the fisheries college and the university facilities will make our Province-St. John's in particular-a key centre of excellence not only in Canada but in the world. We in Newfoundland had to be the best we could be at what we do, and what we do is concerned with the sea. Ever since our Province was discovered, our people have made their livelihood from the sea. This is what they know and this is what they do best. These facilities, largely paid for the Government of Canada in agreement with the Government of Newfoundland, will help to
Supply
make our Province a centre of excellence in marine research and development, not only in the country but in the world. I am proud we are doing that, and I think it is important to put it on the record.
I welcome the opportunity the Hon. Member has provided by introducing his motion for debate. We on this side of the House intend to continue to respond to the needs of Atlantic Canada in transportation, in fisheries and in many other areas. Just the other day we signed a $63 million ten-year agreement with the Government of Newfoundland for further development of the Gros Morne National Park, including some funds for that park and some funds for the Terre Nova National Park. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), has also shown foresight in building up the infrastructure in those beauty spots in our Province. They will not only create jobs but will attract tourists in the long term. These are irrefutable facts which show the Government's response to the real needs of the Atlantic Provinces, and the Government intends to continue with that kind of response.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my learned and hon. friend. I agree with many of the things he said. Many of the projects he listed are very essential ones. No one can quarrel with the need for a trans-Labrador road, for example, and others as well. But there is a concern which has to do with the small craft harbours budget where there is clear evidence of partisan abuse.
The harbour of St. John's, Newfoundland is one of the busiest inshore fishing ports in the Province. The Minister knows that as a result of the building of the synchrolift St. John's fishermen have no place in which to put their boats. Also he knows that when we were in Government we allocated funds to provide a small boat basin for St. John's fishermen. To this date they still have nothing in the way of facilities. Indeed, they are worse off because they were displaced by the synchrolift. The President of the Newfoundland Fisheries and Allied Workers Union wired the Minister a few days ago, bringing this matter to his attention. Why have funds not been included to provide badly needed facilities in St. John's for inshore fishermen? There are over 120 of them and they have no place to tie up their boats, to handle their fish or for shelter in storms. Would the Minister please address that question? It would go a long way toward reducing the charge that there is partisanship at work in the allocation of moneys under the small craft harbours budget.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to address spending as a whole. I mentioned the fisheries college and the Marine Arctic Vessel Research Institute, both of which are in St. John's. I could mention other amounts to be spent on the Avalon Peninsula and in St. John's as well.
The point of my hon. friend is well taken. It is a project to which I am certainly very sympathetic. It needs to be done. There are a lot of fishermen in the St. John's area. Sometimes people do not think of St. John's as a fishing port. They think of it as a transport port, one of the great ports in Canada, but

May 20, 1983
Supply
they do not necessarily think of it as a fishing port. But there are many fishermen in St. John's and I met with them, and indeed I want to say that I am very sympathetic to that project and would like to see it implemented. We in the House cannot always do what we want to do right away. This is a project, though, that I think we should implement and I certainly commit myself to try to get the funds to do it. It was not included in the present allocation, but hopefully it can be included in a future allocation. I certainly support my colleague's efforts in his attempt to get it included.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 appreciate the Minister's support and I believe that he is sincere because he himself comes from St. John's and knows whereof 1 speak. Will he go one step further and make a direct representation to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), to allocate money now when the need is urgent so that our fishermen can at least enjoy some degree of protection, so they will have some place to tie up their boats, some place to handle their fish, things that are not denied to fishermen anywhere else in the Atlantic Provinces? Will he make that direct representation to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I certainly undertake to discuss that with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I am sure that he will be sympathetic to the project as well. As I say, the money has not been allocated because there is not an unlimited supply of funds that would allow us to do all that we want to do at any one time. But I recognize that this is an important project, it is something that should be done, and I certainly lend my support to it.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion before the House, especially as it relates to Atlantic Canada and my native Province of Nova Scotia. I would be the first to admit that the income disparity between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country is slowly closing, but I am sorry to say that we still have a very long way to go.
According to statistics made available last month, real family income in the Atlantic Provinces was still well below the national average last year. While the gap may be closing, the average family income in Nova Scotia listed at $21,872 was still more than $5,000 below the national average listed at $26,748. Families in the remaining Atlantic Provinces fared even worse, and of course this is simply not good enough. Prince Edward Island households trailed the country with average incomes of $20,666, New Brunswick families averaged $21,155, and in Newfoundland the figure was $20,971.
While Nova Scotians can be proud of their showing, it is obvious from the figures I have read in the House that Atlantic Canadians made less than their counterparts in points west. These figures encouraged the Conference Board of Canada to predict that Nova Scotia will be a leader among the other Provinces as they eventually emerge from the current economic recession. In its February report, the Board predicted that
Nova Scotia will experience 2.3 per cent growth in real domestic product this year, second only to Alberta's predicted growth of 2.6 per cent and almost double the 1.2 per cent growth forecast for the country as a whole. The Board attributes the above average growth rate expected for Alberta and Nova Scotia to developments within the mining sector and to the benefits from oil and gas exploration efforts in 1983.
This, Sir, is of course heady stuff. It is what dreams are made of, and all of us hope that these dreams come true. But there is always a little black cloud or two on the horizon. The same Board predicts that Nova Scotia will have a 14.5 per cent unemployment rate this year compared to a national average of something like 13 per cent, while its sister Provinces have much higher projected unemployment rates.
Of course, these are only predictions. Offshore developments including a build up of the necessary infrastructure must, I submit, commence soon if the 1987-88 target for production is to be met. This calls for sending in the $200 million range for infrastructure alone, and I cannot help but wonder if the federal Government has earmarked these funds in its recent budget so that these developments can go forward as planned.
I regret that the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) is not now present in the House. Today he announced $4 million for two projects in South Shore. While I agree that this will be helpful, Sir, it is really only a drop in the bucket when the massive dredging projects that are required throughout the length and breadth of my riding are considered. It is somewhat regrettable that we as Members of the Opposition are not consulted by the Government when it plans for projects of this type within our constituencies, because we could be helpful in earmarking some of these funds which are obviously available.
One of the clouds on the horizon is the concern expressed by business and transportation industry officials over federal moves to reduce or eliminate subsidies on freight shipped within the region or to other Provinces, and I am glad that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is present in the House because I realize that this is a matter which is very close to his heart. In fact, the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce and the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission at a joint news conference described as ominous the terms of reference for a planned Transport Department study on regional and westbound rates. In addition to altering the Crowsnest Pass Agreement, which will of course raise the price of feed grain for eastern farmers and place them at an economic disadvantage-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not true at all.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister states that that is not true. I hope he is correct, but I am only repeating to the House, Sir, what farmers have said to me on the telephone. I have not only received telephone calls from people from the South Shore in Nova Scotia, but I have had telephone calls from people from Prince Edward Island as well. He will have to convince them in his own speeches that-
May 20, 1983


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is the Hon. Member's responsibility to tell them a few things. It is his responsibility.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, the Hon. Minister will have to convince them. They are still not convinced.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Hon. Member will convince them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, I am sorry, I am telling the Hon. Minister what the people have told me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are wrong.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister says that they are wrong. Well, they feel that this will place them at an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis the farmers of Ontario or the farmers of western
Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The price of feed is determined at Thunder Bay.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister states that the price of feed is determined at Thunder Bay. The people are looking at this change as one that will give the farmers in the West an opportunity perhaps to use their wheat to raise more cattle and pork in their own area rather than ship it further east to the Atlantic Provinces, and Atlantic farmers will therefore face hog prices which will be cheaper than what they can produce. This is the threat that they are concerned about. I leave it to the Minister to make his own speech. 1 will lose my 20 minutes if I keep on discussing this particular point, though it is a very important one.
What disturbs the people even more is that the federal Government has called for tenders for a study and it has told applicants that they will be expected to examine, among other things, the effect of the complete removal of subsidies. Freight subsidies on goods shipped within our region dropped to 12.5 per cent from 15 per cent on April 1, 1982, and they dropped to 10 per cent on April 1, 1983, with a promise to give more federal money to the four Provinces for highway maintenance. Now, this may sound good in principle, but I would point out that the federal Government has recognized since 1925 that manufacturers in the Atlantic Provinces are at a distinct disadvantage when trying to sell to major markets in Quebec, Ontario and points west.
The subsidies have varied from different shipping points, but in my opinion they must be retained. 1 say this because Atlantic manufacturers with a limited market must export from the region at least about 80 per cent of what they produce in order to break even while an Ontario producer could, 1 submit, happily survive without exporting anything to the Atlantic Provinces. I would point out that a firm located in Ontario might well spend something like $100 to send a shipment of its goods to the major market of Toronto while the shipment of that same amount of goods from my riding to Toronto would cost $1,200 or more.
1 would not like to predict the number of lost jobs in industries as a result of subsidy elimination for Atlantic
Supply
Canada, but such a move would certainly cause some firms to go bankrupt in our area and would in effect extend the recession for all Atlantic Canada manufacturers. This is without a doubt the most important economic transportation threat to our survival within the last 50 years. It is this type of threat, real or imagined, which keeps our industries on tenterhooks while curtailing the establishment of new industries which would depend on central Canadian markets for some of their sales. These proposals affect all industries, but 1 submit they hit hardest at our farming community.
In the Town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, we hold every summer one of the largest agricultural exhibitions in the Province. This affords me, as a Member of Parliament, the opportunity to meet with my farming constituents and they have told me that a broader range of farm credit policy and financial instruments are needed to provide farmers the flexibility and security required to undertake long-term planning. In fact, the young farmers are the most important of all, those with very little equity who made substantial investments in the late 1970s. They are especially vulnerable today to the instabilities which are presently being experienced.
It is estimated that more than 10 per cent of the farmers in Nova Scotia today are facing substantial financial difficulties as a result of current depressed commodity prices. Half of these farmers are in very critical financial trouble at the present time. The failure to find a solution to the dilemma of these farmers will not only result in increased hardship today, but it will also aggravate the long-term problem of transferring ownership of Nova Scotia farms to a new generation of farmers. In fact, some farmers have expressed concern to me that their annual net income is not sufficient to pay for the interest on capital investment. This, of course, is understandable when you realize that the minimum capital requirement to start a viable farm enterprise today has risen to approximately a quarter of a million dollars. There is a need for policies to enable producers better to cope with problems of fluctuating cash flow, especially in the early years of farming.
Perhaps the Government should consider the leasing of land to new farmers with a provision for eventual purchase. An interest rate stabilization program would also be helpful. What 1 wish to stress is that our farmers, who are the backbone of this country, require more consideration from Goverment planners than they are receiving at the present time.
It is not only our farmers in Nova Scotia who are facing economic difficulties. In spite of Mr. Kirby's recommendations, our fishermen are facing not only economic problems but social and legal problems as well. I wish to bring a legal problem to the attention of this Government. I do so this afternoon more in sorrow than in anger. I refer to the unfortunate burning and sinking of two Department of Fisheries and Oceans chartered fisheries patrol ships in West Pubnico on Wednesday, May 11. 1 raised this issue on May 12 in the House through questions to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane). Unfortunately, his answers left much to be desired and indicated to me, and to the people of Nova Scotia, that the
25650

May 20, 1983
Supply
lines of communication between the Minister and his officials are somewhat blurred and could be improved.
There is trouble between the fishermen and officials of the Minister's Department. However, it must be clearly understood, Sir, that it is not the fishermen who started the trouble. From discussions I have held with the fishermen and their wives, as well as from the large number of letters I have received from fishermen and from their wives in my constituency, it is obvious, at least to me, that the fishermen in this area have been unreasonably provoked and harassed. A 62-year old lobster fisherman, with whom I spoke on the telephone, has fished for 45 years of his life. He told me that this is the first time that trouble of this nature has occurred along the South Shore.
The fishermen have been provoked, laughed at and harassed for over a year by federal fisheries inspectors. These inspectors have cut off their buoys, taken their traps, snarled and cut their lines and left them with absolutely nothing. The fishermen tried to reason, they tried to talk, they tried to rationalize with the officers, all to no avail. The plastic tags for the lobster pots, which are something new in 1983, in place of the metal tags which were nailed to the pots previously, plus the lack of replacement tags,is one of the items at the root of the dispute. It sounds simple to you, Sir, and it is simple to me. However, when you have officers who do not seem to understand that these plastic tags can be lost and are fining the fishermen, this becomes a major problem.
As I understand the problem, all these men are asking for is the right to make a living. They are not pirates. They are not criminals. They are not Mafia types. They are not ruffians. They are hard working, Christian, family men who have been provoked beyond all reason. They have been trying for a lengthy period of time to get through to someone within the Department who will listen to reason, someone with common sense. But this, obviously, does not seem possible. They diligently tried to stop the harassment before someone was killed, but instead of reasoning with these men the Department put five more boats in the area and armed its patrol officers with shotguns.
Does anyone in this House really believe that this is the proper course to follow when dealing with Canadian fishermen? If they do, Sir, then I say to this House that the Government is unaware of the facts and that it is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the pleas of Canadians who, in desperation, under severe provocation, broke the law and destroyed the two patrol boats which symbolized their misery and frustration.
This type of action, of course, is related to the very motion we have before us, because it affects the productivity of my people. 1 would like to tell the House what some of my constituents have had to say. Throughout all of some 50 or more letters plus phone calls which 1 have received, 1 find the same thread of reason. This is only one of some 50 letters 1 have available. It was sent to me and it reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am a resident of Woods Harbour and also a fisherman's wife. I am writing to show my concern over the situation here in this community. So far nine of our men have been arrested on piracy charges and even as I am writing this letter they are arresting more. I am appalled at the justice system in this country. Only one side of the story has been told. The Department of Fisheries side. Every attempt of the fishermen to settle this matter in a peaceful manner has been turned down. Their last resort was the destruction of two boats leased to the D.F.O. If this hadn't happened it would have been lives instead of boats. This is where the situation was headed.
I would like to see a full scale federal investigation take place.
Since the beginning of the lobster season the D.F.O. have been hauling and seizing traps, from this area, tagged or not. Woods Harbour area was hit the hardest. The morning the D.F.O. boats were destroyed, the D.F.O. were armed and willing to challenge the men to a game of cops and robbers. They were given permission to shoot. The fishermen had no defence. Which would the justice system rather see? The loss of two boats which can be replaced or the loss of many lives which cannot.
The fishermen were provoked beyond endurance. They are hard working men trying to support themselves and their families. The D.F.O. is trying to enforce a law 15 years old, which should have been retrieved the year after it went into effect and through neglect on their part failed to do it. The fault lies there.
Now our men are charged with piracy. If they are convicted there is no justice left in this world.
I am begging you to try your best and do something for these men and the situation here in Woods Harbour. We are not pirates. We are honest hardworking people trying our best to make a living. We need help from somewhere.
Yours truly
"Mrs. Gilbert Devine"
Woods Harbour
The same lady also wrote to the Minister of Fisheries a very short letter, and 1 quote:
I am a resident of Woods Harbour and a fishermen's wife. 1 am deeply concerned over the situation here in Woods Harbour. I feel an investigation should be conducted into the D.F.O.'s methods of trap enforcement. The morning of the destruction of the two boats leased by the D.F.O. the RCMP advised them to leave the wharf as they were only antagonizing the situation. The fishermen were challenged to a game of cops and robbers by the D.F.O.
1 was extremely upset by your statement against the fishermen. It is apparent you know nothing about what goes on in your department or you wouldn't be so quick to condemn our men. Your people refused to negotiate with our men. You listened with deaf ears and closed minds. You should be thankful it was only two boats lost and not many lives. If anyone should be charged with piracy it's the D.F.O. for removal of legal traps from the water and the destruction of these traps because the proper size boats were not used or the proper equipment. Your sympathies lie in the wrong place. Without the fishermen you wouldn't even have a job.
Yours truly
"Mrs. Gilbert Devine"
I could place many more letters of that type on the record but I will close with just a few other comments. In view of the comments made by so many of my constituents over a vast area, comments which reflect upon their very lives, their productivity and on Nova Scotia's economy, I wish to endorse the pleas of these fishermen and their wives and families for a full-scale federal investigation not only into what has occurred in West Pubnico but also into the facts concerning the fisheries officials who have apparently been breaking the law for some time through illegal acts against hard working, law abiding Canadians.
May 20, 1983

In conclusion, Sir, no one condones law breaking, but I say to the House that this rule applies equally to Canadian fisheries officers as well as to Canadian fishermen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind my hon. friend and ask him to pass the message on to his constituents that the cost of feed grain in the Maritimes will not be affected by the western rail initiative, for the very simple reason-


J. Michael Forrestall: Is that a promise?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -for the very simple reason that the cost of feed in the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario is determined by the cost of feed at Thunder Bay. That will not change.


Mr. Benjamin:: And the cost will be higher because the freight rate is higher.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The price of feed might be slightly lower in the West, indeed, but the cost of feed in the East will not be affected by this measure. Now, would he spend some time on the weekend trying to reconcile his views on the cost of feed in the West with the western Members of his caucus, because it would be rather useful if they could come to terms, the two sides of Canada, within the bosom of the same Party?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his intervention and his views, but in response I must reiterate one of the major concerns of the people I represent in the farming community is simply this: they realize that these changes will bring about a larger investment by western farmers in what will be a market close to them, namely the raising of more livestock by using their own feed grains. The fear of eastern Canadian farmers is that they will face a glut of pork and beef products on the market at a price with which they will be unable to compete. We are concerned that they will be driven out of their markets, if not because of an increase in their feed cost, then because of low-priced western farm products.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) on his speech. I was in Nova Scotia, in a constituency north of Halifax, and talked to farmers who raise poultry, eggs, hogs and whatnot, and they had granaries full of barley and feed wheat from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. When the Hon. Member is talking to his constituents will he convey to them the fact that if the freight charges on grain to Thunder Bay are increased, the increased freight charges for grain arriving in Thunder Bay will be passed on to feed grain users from Ontario eastward?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not true.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 ask my hon. friend if he is aware of that and would he be good enough to convey that to his people in Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Hon. Member for that intervention. I will convey that to those farmers I represent, but I am also going to convey to them the Minister's promise, on scout's honour, that there will not be any increase in the price of their feed grains. It will be interesting to observe just which of the two points of view they believe.
Supply


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to listening to the Hon. Member's comments, especially with regard to the lobster fishery. I have some very close friends who happen to come from that area and are familiar with the lobster fishery. It seemed to me that the Hon. Member was indicating there was some justification for the burning of the fisheries vessels, that in fact the situation had become intolerable and the fishermen were in some way justified. Is that what the Hon. Member meant, because I certainly do not think that is what he meant. I certainly would not condone that situation.
It is well known to people from that area that there is a problem with poaching, it is well known to people in the area that the physical size of the lobsters is becoming smaller and smaller because there is overfishing. There is a need to cut down the number of traps, exactly the same problem faced by the salmon fishery on the West Coast. There are too many boats fishing for too few fish, and it is driving the fishery into serious recession, depression and perhaps extinction. The same thing is happening to the lobster fishery. When that fishery is gone, what happens to the livelihood of the people then?
Does the Hon. Member have any proposed solution to that kind of problem, because that is where the situation is heading if indeed the Department of Fisheries does not put a stop to the poaching and overfishing taking place on the West Coast as well as the East Coast.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and I will try and give him a precise answer. I have to because he happens to be my Member of Parliament here in Ottawa, so I have to be fair in my response. But I question whether you will give me sufficient time, Mr. Speaker, in which to inform him about the major problems.
First of all, I would point out that I do not, as I stated in the House when questioning the Minister, condone illegal acts or the breaking of the law. But as I stated in my short address a few moments ago, that belief applies not only to te fishermen but equally to the law enforcement officers on the payroll of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They, too, must respect the law, and if they did then this problem would not have arisen.
There is a serious matter of poaching but this has never been fully addressed by the Department. When the Hon. Member speaks about the Department of Fisheries' concern about conserving the species, he must realize that those close to the scene-and I speak now as a man who has gone to sea and who has owned ships on Nova Scotia for 20 years-we who are so closely associated with the industry, are much more concerned about making certain that any species of fish is not decimated. This is the attitude that the fishermen in Woods Harbour and along the south shore who fish for lobster have towards their industry. They will watch it a lot closer than the Department of Fisheries inspectors ever need to.

May 20, 1983
Supply
Lobsters are not being decimated. The stock in fact has been rejuvenated and it will sustain the present fishery. The problem is that the 15 year old law which allowed only 375 traps per boat was sufficient 15 years ago when boats were smaller, but now they have been enlarged for the protection of the men and they carry not one fisherman to sea but sometimes two and three. It is impossible for a boat 60 feet in size to earn a living with increased operating costs generally, and therefore they have asked for a review of that 15 years old law with an updating to maybe 500 or 600 traps per boat, so a sensible living can at least be earned by the fishermen. This is one of the major parts of the problem.
I submit that common sense, sitting down and reasoning it out with all the fishermen would resolve the issue. However, unless it is done, as stated in the letter that 1 read in the House, this fire will not burn out easily and more damage could be done of a physical nature.
The letters I have received indicate that a man named Mr. Stan Dudka, of the Department, threatened the lives of fishermen with a shotgun, boasting that he was the authority, that he had a gun and that he knew how to use it. A number of the letters-I cannot read them all into the record-have requested, "Please remove Mr. Dudka from the area or there will be more trouble". I hope this message gets through to the Minister and his officials.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any questions or comments? Debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), because it gives a chance to speak of the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program the Government has been implementing during these past few weeks and will be implementing in the weeks and months ahead. Of course, the $2.4 billion in the program is only half of the program. The Special Recovery Incentives Program for industry is something which will take longer to initiate because it is an incentive to the private sector. I submit that it will be just as important as in the long haul.
The other part of the motion which I found to be especially interesting involves the question of economic development in Atlantic Canada because, as Your Honour knows, since 1969 the area in northern Ontario which I represent has been under a DREE designation very similar to Atlantic Canada, those slow growth areas of our country, often with resource-based industries, where we have been trying to stimulate economic development. Therefore, a debate like the one this afternoon is of special interest to me as it would be to all Hon. Members from that area.
The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East called attention to the number of Government Members who are in the House today. I would just point out that the motion was put down last night. The Opposition obviously knew that it would put down this motion for several days. In spite of that fact, most of the time today the Opposition has only had three
or four Hon. Members in the House. On this side, we did not know what motion would be put down, so it was no possible to have as many Hon. Members here. However, I am surprised that every Hon. Member from Atlantic Canada was not here when the Opposition obviously knew for many weeks that it would be presenting this motion today, because I know it does a lot of long-term planning on these matters.
I would like to deal with the question of partisanship in the Special Recovery Capital projects because I think there are some obvious disparities in the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member. Certainly the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Rompkey) have made very good accounts of the whole issue in the debate. However, I would also like to raise a couple of aspects.
It should be pointed out that we are discussing 100 Special Recovery Capital Projects. The minimum size is something like $1 million, but most of them are major federal Government installations costing $10 million or $20 million. Naturally, if there are 100 projects, with 282 seats in the House of Commons not every constituency or area in the country will have one of these projects. In fact, it is probable that it will be something like less than one in every three. We should keep that in mind.
Of course, long-term economic benefit has been the special criterion which the Minister has attached to these projects which are being implemented during these few weeks. It is important that the Government implement them in a fast, dramatic way so that the economic benefit in terms of job creation is there. We know that our industry is down right now. The economic turnaround is starting. However, it will take time for those industries which have been working at less than full capacity to take up the economic incentives and $2.4 billion in tax credits which were included in the federal budget and which will have such a dramatic effect on our industry in developing jobs during the next few years. Right now the Special Recovery Capital Projects will be very beneficial in doing that. Of course, they are located in many industries, in transport, in research, in vessel construction and in tourism.
I would just like to refer to two or three projects which have been mentioned here this afternoon in the course of the debate. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) have mentioned the small craft harbours allocation. It is important to note what a tremendous injection of money the federal Government has committed to the small craft harbours program. It is also important to note that $67 million of the $127 million allocated to the program went to the Maritime Provinces-$24 million to Newfoundland, $25.4 million to Nova Scotia, $10 million to New Brunswick and $8.8 million to Prince Edward Island. That should be compared to Ontario which has a population of over eight million. The Ontario allocation was $27.3 million under the small craft harbours program.
Some may say that Ontario does not have the fishery and so on. That may well be true. We do not have as large a fishery as
May 20, 1983

Atlantic Canada but we do have an important inland fishery. More importantly, we do have a tremendous tourist industry which depends on small craft harbours.
1 want to congratulate those people who work in the small craft harbours branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the Ontario region because they work with a staff of about seven permanent employees and about five temporary employees. They carry out a simply tremendous program. If anyone said that a $27 million construction program had to be implemented with a staff of 12 or 15 people, it would be very difficult to imagine that happening. However, these people work in a very constructive and purposeful way.
Yesterday, in my own constituency, 1 announced a program of $1.84 milion for small craft harbour development. 1 was pretty proud of that. 1 thought it was a tremendous injection, certainly the largest since I have been a Member, for capital construction for small craft harbours. 1 would like to discuss it a little further. However, by comparison, today a $4 million small craft harbours program was announced in the constituency of the Hon. Member for South Shore and he called it a drop in the bucket. I hope my constituents in Algoma-Manitoulin, which has the largest number of harbours of any constituency in Ontario, will not hear his comments so they will not think the allocation we received of $1.84 million is not very much. It is certainly an important injection of capital.
It is obvious that the comments of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East are simply not the case when we consider how much money has been allocated to the Maritime Provinces compared to Ontario. Over 50 per cent of all the boats in Canada are in the Province of Ontario. Eighty per cent of all vessels visiting Canada from the United States come to Ontario waters. Therefore, our allocation, by comparison, is very small. It simply disproves the argument that less funds proportionately are being allocated to the Maritime Provinces than to Ontario. The allocation of funds for small craft harbours under the Special Recovery Program is very important to my constituency. There were eight projects approved yesterday.


An Hon. Member:: How many?


Maurice Brydon Foster: There were eight small projects included in the $1.84 million program. 1 point out to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East that that is less than 50 per cent of the amount approved for the South Shore constituency and which the Hon. Member for South Shore called a drop in the bucket. I hope his remarks will not be heard in my constituency where we received half that amount.
We have a number of projects to develop the small craft harbours around the north channel of Lake Huron which is, without doubt, the best cruising and sailing area in North America. It rivals the British Virgin Islands and the Greek Islands which are the two most often compared with our area.
Just to the south, at the end of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, there are some 25 million Americans who come to the north channel of Lake Huron to sail. It is unquestionably the best tourist opportunity we have for economic development in
Supply
that part of the country. Not only are we attracting literally thousands of people and hundreds of American boats to that area, but we will be able to develop major new harbours as a result of the allocations given yesterday in Little Current. We will be able to carry on dredging in the Spanish River for that harbour of refuge, complete a new harbour at Bruce Mines as well as other harbours at Richards Landing, Gore Bay, Manitowaning, Gros Cap, Thessalon and Blind River.
These are all harbours which surround the north channel and which will provide an access for people to the water. As well it will provide to those tourists sailing in from American waters an opportunity to rest and buy fuel, food and accommodation in those many communities. This is not simply a convenience for the person who has a boat to go sailing on a Sunday afternoon; it literally brings hundreds and millions of dollars from the United States to that part of the Great Lakes. I would point out that even though it is a major injection of funds it does not come very close to the amount which is being expended in Atlantic Canada.
I would also like to comment on the question of forestery laboratories. In the City of Sault Ste Marie, which is in the constituency next to mine, a major forestry complex was announced a week or two ago. That complex is to be an addition to the existing forest research laboratory and will cost some $13 million. The Hon. Member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Irwin) worked very hard to secure that major addition to a most important industry of northern Ontario.
I would point out that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East said in his partisan comments that all these projects were going to Liberal ridings held by Government Members. However, when one sees the Maritime Forest Research Laboratory located in Fredericton, $22.5 million has been allocated to that constituency which is held by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) who is a Member of the Official Opposition and a former Minister of the Crown.
I suggest that this disproves the argument being made about partisanship being involved in the whole question of Special Capital Projects. What is more important is that I think Members on both sides of the House would agree that those major laboratories for forestry research are very important to that industry. I am sure it is as true in Atlantic Canada as it is in northern Ontario and areas in B.C. that major strides are needed to be made in forest research if we are to reach the objective chosen by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and his provincial counterparts to increase our forest products by 40 per cent during the next 17 years. This will involve a major investment by the federal Government, and in fact the forestry Minister said that we would have to increase our funding from $300 million annually to $650 million a year during the next few years in order to increase the production of wood fibres to meet the needs of the future.
I cannot think of any more important factor in achieving that goal than forestry research. The massive losses from insects and diseases clearly demonstrate the important and

May 20, 1983
Supply
vital role of research. 1 know some of the people who are involved in this research at the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie and I am delighted that those facilities will be expanded. In no way do I detract from the importance of the $22.5 million to be spent in the York-Sunbury riding for the Maritime research lab; I am sure they have equal needs in that area. I believe there was the announcement of three or four labs during the past week and they were obviously not made on a partisan basis but clearly on economic and need criteria, as the Minister indicated this afternoon.
I would further point out to the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East that the funding of $18.25 million from the Special Recovery Capital Project Program to the Atlantic Veterinary College went into the riding of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), who is a Progressive Conservative Member. No one on this side of the House detracts from that allocation. It is a project which has been waiting for funding and I am pleased that it has received it.
Since the Hon. Member has suggested that these allocations of funds are provided on a partisan basis, being a veterinarian myself, I can tell him that if we wanted to be partisan, that same amount of money could have been spent on the Ontario Veterinary College. That college has just lost its full accreditation as a veterinary school in North America; it now has a limited accreditation. The Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder), who is a Liberal on the Government side, used to be on the staff of the Ontario Veterinary College. That money would have brought the school up to full accredited status. If these projects were implemented on a partisan basis, the obvious place to spend that $ 18 million would have been at the University of Guelph which does not have full accreditation even though it has a long and distinguished history.
The review committee discovered that that college had inadequate lab facilities, inadequate classroom facilities and rundown office and clinical spaces as a result of inadequate funding. I would also point out that the federal Government has put up approximately 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the money for funding of the university. Therefore we must ask ourselves whether the Ontario Government has given it adequate priority.
I think many of the arguments made by the Hon. Member simply cannot be true. What about the three or four projects about which I have spoken? The motion, however, has given us a great opportunity to speak about the special highway projects, small craft harbours, veterinary colleges and topics near and dear to the hearts of Members from Atlantic Canada and those of us from areas like northern Ontario. We all face the same kinds of slow growth and economic problems which many of the outlying areas of our country face today. From that point of view I am glad we have had a chance today to have this debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the distinguished Member a very brief question. Does he believe in the final analysis, when all is said and done, whether major projects
such as research centres, so vitally needed in the forest industry, the research centres in the Miramichi region, not altogether a Conservative riding, if you will, programs that have been in our budgetary process for many years, are not best funded out of general revenue?
In other words, is the Hon. Member suggesting to us that Canadians must wait until there is a massive economic crisis to get much needed help for the forestry and research centres? Is that what we are looking for? Twenty years ago the West Coast, for example, got an aquarium. An equivalent amount of money was promised for the East Coast. Are we only to go after these programs when Special Recovery Projects are underway or should they not be included in the ongoing, longterm process of normal Government expenditures?
I am prompted to ask the Hon. Member this because he is lamenting having received only eight special projects in his riding. I represent two-thirds of Halifax harbour. I do not even have one public marina in my harbour in spite of having pleaded for one over the last 15 years to 18 years. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has eight special projects for small craft harbours. I have a fishing community of 60 or 70 families directly dependent upon a wharf that is not safe to walk on. Indeed, the last 100 metres of it is, or should be closed.
Where is the justification for that, Mr. Speaker? Should we be waiting until there is a major economic crisis for a Special Recovery Program or should not these major things that are the basis of research, medical research not being the least of them, forestry research and mining, not be part of the ongoing budgetary process of Government?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a couple of questions. One aspect I find important in the Hon. Member's question is that we tend to get more of the big projects, such as I have outlined today in large centres, not in the small communities. For example, in my constituency there is one project with eight locations. Even that is a relatively small amount of money compared to the costs for big veterinary colleges or forestry laboratories. But thank heaven there are projects of that type which can be implemented and that have a long-term economic spin-off.
With regard to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, I would not say that we are doing projects now that have been in the wings. Some of them have been in the wings for some time, such as the Atlantic Veterinary College, because we could not get agreement. We still do not have an agreement from the Provinces for funding but at least we have a firm commitment of money. Nearly all of these projects were projects that were in the pipeline two or three years down the road and have been brought forward. I think that is the economic wisdom of the budget in taking those projects which were going to be built two or three years from now and building them now while we have slack in the economy, unemployed construction workers and the plant and capacity to do them. Many of these people will be facing unemployment benefits
May 20, 1983

and so on. If we do those projects now we can give an immediate injection of job creation with economic benefits later on. It may mean there will not be so much money to spend on these kinds of projects three or four years from now; if we spend the money now, obviously we will not need them later because they will already be onstream. However, the economic benefits will flow from them. They will improve transportation, fisheries or whatever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any further questions or comments? Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on Atlantic Canada. I live 5,000 miles away, I suppose, from the beginnings of Atlantic Canada, yet I have listened today with great interest to some good speeches that have been made in the House. I have listened to some of the comments and questions. I think we have a lot to learn from Atlantic Canada; I know I have learned a few things today.
I want to read the motion again just in case some people have forgotten it. The wording is quite interesting. It reads:
That this House recognizes the need for long-term solutions-
I just want to emphasize the words "long-term solutions". The motion continues:
-to the economic difficulties facing Atlantic Canada and, although welcoming the injection of funds provided under the Special Recovery Program, rejects the manner in which those funds are being allocated, particularly the decision to use partisan advantage-
I underline the words "partisan advantage". The motion continues:
-rather than need as the basis for the provision of funding, and condemns the government for its failure to adopt policies which would create lasting economic growth with permanent jobs and investment in Atlantic Canada.
When I read that motion I smiled to myself, especially at the words "partisan advantage". Here are the Conservatives giving it to the Liberal Government for using patronage in Altantic Canada.


An Hon. Member:: It sounds like the NDP.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
The last time I was in Altantic Canada was during the Nova Scotia provincial election. A couple of days before the election I was being driven down the street and the roads were all being paved. It was even warm under the car. I said to my host this was excellent. I asked if this were done all the time. My host replied: "No, only around election time". If you want to talk about patronage, you have to blame both old line Parties.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Watch your halo.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister is suggesting that I should watch my halo to see that it won't slip. I will try to refrain, because it has slipped lots of times before, from being holier than thou. I would only be human-and I say this to the Minister-if I did not point out that we in the NDP get people criticizing us. They say: "If you get in power, maybe there will
Supply
not be economic growth. The Conservatives and the Liberals are Parties of economic growth."
I have always thought of that as a nonsense argument, but all you have to do is look at Atlantic Canada. For the last 100 years there has been a chronic recession. You cannot blame the NDP for that because we have not been in Government in Atlantic Canada. The Grits and the Tories have had the power, the old line Parties. The people there have received the same kind of nonsense from both old line Parties. The people have received excuses and poor government for that period. I know there are other factors, but poor government and excuses have contributed to chronic recession.
When I look at the words "Special Recovery Program" in the motion before the House-and I have not had time to research it-I wonder how many such programs there have been in Atlantic Canada. In my lifetime there have been hundreds of special recovery programs to pick up the economy and suddenly make it work. The motion applauds the Special Recovery Program and worries about partisan advantage. In essence it suggests really more of the same. It talks about longterm solutions but does not really specify what those solutions are. It is really bits and pieces, the same kinds of hand-outs which Atlantic Canada has been getting for years.
I have to walk delicately here because it is not up to me as a British Columbia Member to tell people in Atlantic Canada what is good for them, unlike what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in the House today. He is prepared to tell western farmers what is good for them and that they will benefit, whether or not they like it, from changes in the Crow rate. Surely that is nonsense. It would be inconsistent of me to suggest that I have all the answers to the problems in Atlantic Canada or to tell Atlantic Canadians what is good for them.
I would like to indicate what we in the New Democratic Party can do and have done. First I will indicate one specific example and then I will talk about the general problem affecting Atlantic Canada, indeed all of Canada. I and other Members of the NDP have been active in the regional economic expansion committee in examining the work of Devco, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is responsible for coal and various aspects of coal development in that area. I have been in touch with a former Member of the House, Father Andy Hogan, who used to be the Member of Parliament from Cape Breton.


Fred Alward McCain: They knew better than to elect him again.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member should not worry because he will be back after the next election. He continues to have an interest in the area. I would like to tell the Hon. Member about one area on which we have been working, which I am sure he will support. The Devco officials appeared before the committee, at which point we asked them whether they were receiving many job applications. I am not sure whether the figures are correct, but they said that something like 14,000 people had applied for jobs and that they just could not provide

May 20, 1983
Supply
them. We suggested that they should open up new mines, for example, the Lingan mine. They told us that they had applied to the federal Government but that there was delay.
What they were receiving from the federal Government was NEED funds for local development programs and so on. It was basically the same pattern of short-term jobs, clean-up projects such as raking leaves and so on, rather than real projects such as mining. The world market for coal is down now but it is improving. Devco just found some new markets in Korea and other places. They should be opening up these mines and providing real jobs for people in Atlantic Canada rather than being subjected to the hand-out programs of the Government.
We have much to learn from Atlantic Canada, but I have something to say of a general nature. The rest of Canada may soon suffer some of the recessionary effects that have been with Atlantic Canada for so long. I am referring to the high rate of unemployment which we now have in the country. This has been more traditional in the Maritime Provinces, in Atlantic Canada generally. It seems that a third of that unemployment is unemployment created by Government, by monetarist policies or by tight policies which have literally squeezed the economy and produced a lot of unemployment. It is purposeful unemployment. People in the Maritimes and elsewhere in Canada should realize that the Government through the Bank of Canada created a high level of unemployment.
As 1 said, I think that amounts to about one-third. I think the other two-thirds of the present unemployment is structural, that is, the result of a change in the whole structure of industry. We are seeing more robots. We are seeing more high technology and more office machines replacing secretaries and so on. This is affecting the entire country and will continue to do so. The budget itself predicted the unemployment rate at about 12 per cent to 13 per cent this year and again next year. It could even be worse. We will have to face the new society. We can talk about long-term solutions, but in the motion before the House there are in fact no long-term solutions.
Let me suggest a few solutions before I sit down. First, we need to retrain workers; all Parties agree with that. We have to go at it in a big way. We need more than just retraining; we need to give working people, in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere, some control over what capital is doing and what companies are doing. Often companies want to go through technological change, so they move, for example, from Atlantic Canada or from central Canada to the United States, or from British Columbia to Manila. What happens to the workers in these industries? They are thrown out on the streets. Some people say that more jobs will be created in the high-tech society. I am not so sure about that, because the jobs will go outside the country.
Other people say that more jobs will be created in the manufacture of the robots or the machines. If we look at the history of Canada, we have not really made machines. If we look at the mining industry in particular, we do not make many of the mining machines in Canada; we import them. We will have the same problem with high-tech. As the Minister of
Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) said publicly, we could have a major problem in Canada with workers rioting in the streets; at least, that is what the headlines indicated. We have to look at controlling the areas in which the companies will move. Workers should be given some say and be on the boards of directors. We have to talk about part-time work, a lot of which is in Atlantic Canada. We cannot have small employers paying full wages for part-time work. We will have to subsidize the part-time work, which may mean a new idea of a guaranteed annual income. We will have to make companies and Crown corporations more open, and we require some real economic plan for the country.
In my limited amount of time I suggest to the people of Atlantic Canada, and indeed to all Canadians, that we have to adapt some really radical programs. I am not afraid to say the word "radical", unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals. We need radical programs to survive in a radically new age. I know what Hon. Members opposite will say. I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). He wants to leave it to private enterprise. This is what Atlantic Canada has done for the last 100 years. Atlantic Canada is an example of where investment and industry has moved out. It is a wonderful place with great people, but we have not been fair to Atlantic Canada. The same process will happen in central Canada and in western Canada if we do not get a handle on the new high-tech society of the future.
I thank the House for the opportunity to raise that point and to say basically that some of the problems in Atlantic Canada require long-term solutions, as do those in the rest of the country.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate which will either close with my words or the clock, one or the other, by 5 p.m.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I understand his traditional, doctrinaire approach. He was not trying to be condescending to Atlantic Canada; he tried to be fair in his way.
Since I come from Atlantic Canada, let me indicate that we are sort of a test tube of a mixed economy situation. We have had the philosophy of private enterprise. We are small and have had to compete against central Canadian markets. We are supposedly the wharf of the Atlantic, but with the rates on Atlantic shipping sometimes we do not obtain the benefit of our geographical position. We in Atlantic Canada have had by circumstance and by reality a mix of the private sector with the public sector and that is one reason we have survived.
In these closing minutes before five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to one of the matters that has been touched upon by all of the Members from Atlantic Canada who have spoken today. That is the Maritime Freight Rates Act which, in our opinion, is our symbolic Crow. As in
May 20, 1983

other parts of Canada, there has been concern about fundamental change to the Crow legislation.
Before I get into that, I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), in whose name this resolution is put. As Members know, today is what is called supply day, a day when the Opposition can pick a topic and debate it. It serves as a substitution for discussion of estimates in Committee of the Whole and it affords an opportunity for Members to debate and express their points of view and points of interest. Frankly, it would be much more real if there was to be a vote at the end of the motion. This is one procedure where there is debate without a vote.
The Hon. Member's resolution is so general and so good that I would think that if it was to be voted on, as long as it did not bring down the Government, I believe that almost anyone would be prepared to vote for it. The motion reads:
That this House recognizes the need for long-term solutions to the economic difficulties facing Atlantic Canada and, although welcoming the injection of funds provided under the Special Recovery Program, rejects the manner in which those funds are being allocated particularly the decision to use partisan advantage rather than need as the basis for the provision of funding, and condemns the Government for its failure to adopt policies which would create lasting economic growth with permanent jobs and investment in Atlantic Canada.
I certainly subscribe to that whole-heartedly.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to take any time talking about what other Members have talked about, the partisan nature of the allocation of the Special Recovery Capital Projects. I think that that topic has been covered very well. I agree with my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who said that the need is for the creation of permanent jobs.
The resolution says that lasting economic growth is required. That is the subject I wish to discuss because there can be much pump priming and porkbarrelling and as many press announcements of Special Recovery Capital Projects which will last a finite time to provide much needed employment in a time of economic difficulty, and those are good; but they are just the old provisional, proverbial, band-aid approaches.
I compliment the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the Members for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in particular who, along with other Members, have contributed to this debate. They have focused on something that we in Atlantic Canada have but something that is under a real threat in terms of change. This gives us concern because we are not afraid of change if it is to be constructive change, but change for the sake of change and change that is stimulated and defined in the hallways of the bureaucracy gives us real concern. Of course, 1 am talking about the Maritime freight rates matter.
I think the timing of this debate is most interesting, Mr. Speaker, because there has been a preoccupation with western problems, be they energy problems under the National Energy Program that has devastated so much of the oil and gas industry of the land, or more recently and topically, the changes the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has brought in
Supply
to, in effect, fundamentally change the Magna Carta of the West, the Crow legislation. I believe that now is the time that Atlantic Members in particular from all sides of the House must be careful that, among the larger issues affecting Crow and energy and the general economic climate, some of our specific concerns do not get lost in the shuffle.
I have a unique opportunity this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to show you how something can get lost in the shuffle in the answer of the genial Minister of Transport. 1 will confront him with an answer he gave to a question I asked on Monday, May 9, 1983. I asked him that question in particular that day because that was the day the Crow legislation was introduced, although there were some difficulties getting it launched.
I asked the Minister a very direct question that dealt with having the Crow rate changed in a manner that would be deemed in the best interests of all of the country, not just in the best interests of two of the western Provinces. Even though that was western Canada's Magna Carta, I did not want to lose sight of what we in Atlantic Canada have, that old Maritime Freight Rates Act which goes back to the 1920s. Quite frankly, although it is not tied up in constitutional amendments, procedures and protection, the freight rate in Atlantic Canada, though it has been eroded away, is just as important to the East, philosophically and economically, as the Crow rate is to the West. As the Government plays with the big numbers in the West, the Atlantic freight rate might get lost in the shuffle. While the numbers in the East are not as big, they are just as important.
Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister a question that in effect dealt with the concern that his Department's study to review the Maritime Freight Rates Act had brought protest from three Provinces, and perhaps I will read the question. I asked:
Has the Minister received the protest of four provincial Ministers of Transportation about the narrow terms of reference, very narrow timeframe, and lack of public input to this study, and what does he intend to do about this?
I rarely get the chance to dissect a Minister's answer after the event with information that has come to my hand. Part of the Minister's answer is as follows:
Madam Speaker, my information is quite different. I understand two Atlantic Provinces have agreed, one has remained neutral, and one has disagreed ... The studies and review of the nature indicated by my hon. friend are the type of thing we try to do together, namely, attempt to spend as well as we can-
Pay careful attention to this, Mr. Speaker, in view of what 1 will read into the record in a moment:
-the hundreds of millions of dollars in support the federal Government gives to the Atlantic Provinces in matters of transportation.
He said hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, I will refer him to his own terms of reference for this study, and since we are on the topic I will do it now. The document I have in my hand is titled, "Terms of Reference, MFRA/ARFAA Subsidy Program, Industry Impact Analysis", Transport Canada, dated December 1982. In describing what is meant by Maritime freight rates, the terms of reference said:
There are two components to the subsidy program-

May 20, 1983
Supply
As most of us here know, there is the intra subsidy for the select territory and the western subsidy outside the select territory. But then listen to this, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer the Minister gave me previously. I do not believe that the Minister was trying to deceive me; he may have been thinking about global figures, but my question was on Maritime freight rates and the concern about losing that. Here in his own impact study it say of the expenditures on MFRA and the new one, the Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act, the child of the parent:
-subsidies are estimated to become S70-80 million by 1986/87-
I will not dwell too long on that topic because there are other things I wish to speak about, but when the Minister answered the question the other day by saying hundreds of millions of dollars, I was in such a state of shock that I really did not get back to him. 1 wanted to ask a supplementary question, which 1 did, and that is also how I will end my speech today. But the Minister's own impact study says $70 million to $80 million, and I hope that the Minister will have a chance to explain that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the totality, as Joe Clark would say, the totality of contribution which the federal Government makes to the Maritime Provinces. Hence the meaning. The maritime freight rate is but one part of it, and this arrangement which we have with the Maritime Government covers more than the Maritime freight rate. So 1 really think I was very honest.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not take issue with the Minister the other day, and I know he was not deliberately trying to deceive, and I did not intend to give the impression today that he was deliberately trying to deceive, but he is so gosh darn plausible and pleasant in some of his answers that he gives the wrong impression. As far as I am concerned, 1 was not talking about the totality of the circumstances, or transportation of all the Atlantic Provinces. I was talking, as my question was properly framed, about the Maritime Freight Rates Act, my dear Minister, and his answer, which is what 1 am coming to in the second part, referred to the memorandum of understanding. He suggests that because I have been busy at other things I did not really understand what the memorandum was.
1 will get to my second part affer we get past the amounts involved, which is not hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into Atlantic Canada, certainly in freight rates assistance. I believe my friend has perhaps been oversaturated with hundreds of millions of dollars because he has been so involved with Crow. That is why 1 say we may get lost in the shuffle unless we speak loud and often on our concerns.
Let us go now to the memorandum of understanding and what the Minister said in his answer to me, that we do these things together. He suggested he had the support of two Ministers of Transport; one was perhaps a little negative and one was a little dubious about the terms of reference. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, copies of the letters from the four
Atlantic Ministers of Transport. I will read parts of the first one, which is dated March 29, 1983. My question, of course, was on May 9, so these letters were already there.
This letter is from the Hon. Mr. Giffin, the Minister of Transport for Nova Scotia. He says in his opening:
I am very concerned that Transport Canada has recently called for proposals to undertake an MFRA/ARFAA Industry Impact Analysis. My officials became aware of the proposed analysis when it was brought to their attention on February 10, 1983 by a consultant who had received the terms of reference.
He goes on to say in the second paragraph:
The main thrust of the January 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between our governments is one of joint strategic transportation planning. In the M.O.U. we agreed that:
"through cooperation better transportation facilities and services can be
planned and provided for the Maritime Provinces".
Then he goes on to say:
If a study of this nature is to be done it should be undertaken if the provinces assist in determining the objectives and scope of the work and are given the opportunity to ensure that the consultants' work adequately satisfies the terms of reference.
In effect, there is the same message from the other three Ministers of Transport. The Minister of Transport for New Brunswick, the Hon. Mr. Bishop, said in a letter dated March 28, 1983:
Dear Mr. Pepin:
I was extremely concerned to learn recently that your Department has awarded a contract-
"Has awarded a contract". He did not phone them to ask them about it. Here is something so gosh darn fundamental in Atlantic Canada yet they read about it in the paper, and as one Minister said, they hear about it when a consultant comes into their office. This is completely defying the memorandum of understanding which the Minister referred me to in his answer that day in May when he said "We do things together". Not one of these letters said they did it together. They were informed after the fact.
Mr. Bishop points out in his letter:
I was extremely concerned to learn recently that your Department has awarded a contract for a study of freight subsidies paid under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act without permitting the traditional and appropriate involvement by provincial representatives.
That is as clear as it can be. There was one of this joint discussion, this co-operation, as in the memorandum of agreement which my hon. friend referred me to the day I asked him the question. 1 suppose he has been very busy on many things. However, certainly the answer he gave me in May, and I will repeat it, was:
The studies and review of the nature indicated by my hon. friend are the type of thing we try to do together-
Hosanna! We try to do it together, namely, attempt to spend as well as we can the hundreds of millions of dollars. I just quoted two letters saying it was not done together. Mr. Bishop, the Minister of Transport for New Brunswick, goes on to say:
I am further advised that my officials first became aware of the federal study when they received inquiries from consultants who had been asked to bid on it last month.
May 20, 1983

He then goes on to say in the very last paragraph:
It is critical that any analysis of their effectiveness-
That is the study.
-take place in a forum where the provincial Governments fully participate in determining the objectives, scope and execution of the work, as has been the traditional approach, and as we envisaged when we signed a Memorandum of Understanding a year ago. Therefore i request that the present federal study not be proceeded with and that future work on this matter be conducted jointly.
In effect, we have the same message from the Minister of Transport of Prince Edward Island who reviews the history and says:
Dear Mr. Pepin:
It has come to my attention that your Department plans to undertake, unilaterally, a study of the westbound subsidy programs under the Maritime Freight Rates Act-
On the second page he goes on to say:
-I find it quite alarming that your Department would proceed with a comprehensive analysis of it which would consider the "removal or partial removal"-
There is no doubt the terms of reference are definitely directed to removal or partial removal of the subsidy program. He continues in his letter:
-of the subsidies without consultation with or input from the Provinces.
In effect, the Minister of Transport for Newfoundland says the same thing, that there was no consultation prior to the awarding of the contract; and he says in his letter of April 5, 1983:
-the Province of Newfoundland in this issue has not been consulted and is deeply disappointed.
In the last paragraph the Minister of Transport for Newfoundland says:
1 believe Transport Canada should reaffirm its commitment to joint cooperative transportation planning and commence honouring that commitment.
The answer the Minister gave me in May, Mr. Speaker, was reassuring; he had hundreds of millions of dollars to spend and "we try to do it together". Yet in his Department, somewhere in his files, there were these letters from four Ministers of Transport who were saying the direct opposite and chastising the Minister for going ahead unilaterally with a fundamental study of the Maritime Freight Rates Act in which the Atlantic Ministers of Transport were not involved, contrary to the memorandum of understanding which the Minister himself had directed me to in those dulcet tones which were supposed to seduce me, and did in part, until I received this correspondence. It is the first time I have had correspondence which is so directly contrary to the soothing answers and statements by the Minister on something which is so fundamental.
We do not have to have a study, Mr. Speaker; we know from Mr. Craig Dickson, the General Manager of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, and Mr. Elwood Dillman, who is the Chairman of the Commission, from statements they have already given to the papers, and I know
Supply
as an Hon. Member representing my area, as do other Members from Atlantic Canada, that there are so many industries-mine are based on the land; my friend's from South Shore are more based on the sea-that are so marginal. It may not be the hundreds of millions of dollars the Minister is talking about, but if that subsidy was removed, I can predict today, as Mr. Dickson and Mr. Dillman have, who are outside of this House and very experienced people in transportation, there will be industries which will go down the drain.
We have areas which are going to be adversely affected by the removal of a structure which has given us help through a consultant's report-and I can go through it. It is an Ottawa consulting firm. We are very concerned with the terms of reference.
My time is almost up and I come to the last part of my question that day when I pleaded with the Minister. In view of the fact there is this difference of opinion on how the study started, there is real concern from the Ministers about how it started. There was no consultation. Read the terms of the study and you will see it is very definitely directed to removing in part or totally the intra and external westbound subsidy.
I could go through all this in another speech, but I plead with the Minister to be a little more direct in answering the last question I asked him so as to ensure that there is a chance for public input in any study. I do not mind a study if the study is not going to have binding conclusions which are going to eliminate something which we feel is as fundamental as the people in the West feel about the Crow.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the answer the Minister gave me in May, when I asked for public input-that is, public input from the people who are hurt, who are going to be hurt, not just Ministers of Transport behind closed doors-was this:
Yes, there will be consultation at least with the Governments of the Atlantic Provinces.
There has to be more, Mr. Speaker. There has to be consultation and meetings and a chance for Atlantic industry and Atlantic businessmen to be heard on whatever the report is which these consultants dream up within the closets of the bureaucracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It being five 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.
Pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), this House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 24, 1983