1983-05-30

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forests and its indifference to the threat posed to Canada's forests and forest industries by pests, fire, pollution and foreign competition, and calls upon the Government to stimulate the research needed to promote superior growth and diversify export products, and acknowledge its responsibility to protect the Canadian environment and the millions of Canadians whose livelihood depends upon Canada's forest resources.
[DOT]	(H10)
He said: Mr. Speaker, let me first express my appreciation to my colleagues on this side of the House and thank them for their foresight, their interest and their concern for our forests, which of course is reflected in our decision to set aside this parliamentary day to talk about forests, in competition with many other weighty issues that are occupying our attention now.
The motion I have introduced may appear unreasonably harsh to those people who have listened to the Minister whose responsibility it is to speak for the Government on matters relating to our forests. At the outset I wish to say that I appreciate the sincerity and the genuine commitment to this important component of the dual responsibility of the Minister. I know he believes as I do that in a country depending to such a great extent for its economic and social well-being on its forest resources, it is imperative the management and care of this resource be given the undivided attention of a Minister. This view is shared and strongly advocated by all sectors of the forest community.
1 know the Minister is trying his very best, but considering the limits of his mandate and the competition he faces in Cabinet from his colleagues for power and scarce financial resources, his best efforts fall far short of any expectations his pronouncements have generated. We intend today to remind the Minister and the Government of its neglected responsibility regarding our forests and the multifaceted, important economic and social issues associated with this most precious of our natural resource heritage.
In 1871 Sir John A. Macdonald said:
The sight of immense masses of timber passing my windows every morning constantly suggests to my mind the absolute necessity for looking into the future of this great trade. We are recklessly destroying the timber of Canada and there is scarcely a possibility of replacing it.
Also he said:
It occurs to me that the subject should be looked in the face, and some efforts made for the preservation of our timber.
Of course, I have no idea from which particular vantage point Sir John A. made his observation, but I can assure the House that whatever it was he would no longer have to be troubled by such sights here in Ottawa Valley. The timber is long gone. The great trade of which our first Prime Minister spoke has rapidly expanded over the years, but it has moved on to other parts of Canada as the forests became depleted and until a decade ago no one heeded the warning of how recklessly we were destroying our forests. The crisis which was foreseen 100 years ago for the Ottawa Valley now affects the whole country. One might say that the Ottawa Valley really has not suffered all that much. As we always do, we simply adjust to a different economy, one less dependent on natural resources.
We might be able to renew our industrial structure with robots and computers. I have every confidence that we as Canadians can compete with the best in the new information-based world economies. But our real strength as an industrial nation will always flow particularly from those of our natural resources which are renewable as is the case of our forests.
There are four major biological systems on which the world will depend for its survival. Trees are one of them. Canada owns 10 per cent of the world's total forest inventory. Our wood-converting industry produces 22 per cent of world market requirements in manufactured forest products and 30 per cent of its pulp and paper products are traded internationally. This trade generates $12 billion annually in net foreign exchange earnings, which exceeds the earnings of all other major resource sectors such as fish, grain and hydrocarbons combined. According to forecasts by the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, the world's demand of industrial softwood will increase by 2.1 per cent every year over the next 20 years.
Merely to maintain our market share would require an increased output of 50 per cent of wood products by the year 2000. Everyone except the federal Government knows now that such a goal cannot be realized with present policies. We would have to produce 210 million cubic metres of wood by the end of this century, and to sustain such massive harvests it

May 30, 1983
Supply
would require equally massive efforts toward advanced scientific research and new management practices, with the emphasis on forest protection, the enhancement of productivity of existing stands through thinning and fertilization and, of course, the replanting of harvested areas.
The cost of such efforts after so many years of neglect are high, but they are not high in comparison to the economic benefits which we derive from our forest harvest. Governments receive approximately $2 billion annually from taxation and other direct and indirect benefits. That is roughly shared fifty-fifty between the federal and provincial Governments. That, if nothing else, should be sufficient reason for our Government to commit itself to a greater share of the cost connected with maintaining a healthy resource base. We in fact believe it to be a fundamental principle that the responsibility for funding the maintenance of the resource should be relative to the benefits received.
With that in mind, let us see what commitment the federal Government is prepared to make. Last year the Minister published a policy statement entitled "A framework for forest renewal". It recognized the most basic requirement identified by the committee of provincial resource ministers to increase public spending in areas of government responsibility by 10 per cent annually. Estimated expenditures for forest renewal in 1982 were about $300 million. The federal Government contributed $100 million, or 37 per cent. To meet even the most minimum targets, $650 million in 1982 dollars will have to be spent by the year 1987. The federal contribution to this amount would be $130 million or 20 per cent of the total, hardly a substantial increase over a five-year period. Fully 80 per cent of the cost will be passed on to the Provinces. Again this can hardly be seen as being relative to the benefits received.
I have spoken earlier of the Minister's limited mandate in forestry matters and the competition he faces in Cabinet. An example of that is the most recent announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) regarding the establishment of a task force to advise him of the forest industry's needs in terms of assistance to help the industry maintain its competitive position in the world market and expand its productivity.
I give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce full marks for recognizing the forest sector's potential for growth and the creation of new jobs and for realizing the forest Minister's limited authority and resources to respond to the industry's requirements. However, it is because we have in the past segregated the industrial side of forestry from the management side that our forests are in such a state of neglect.
All that was to change with the announcement in 1981 by the Minister of a new forest sector strategy committee. The tripartite approach involving industry, the Provinces and the Federal Government in an all out effort will try to remedy some of the past sins. Already that appears to be forgotten. Incredibly, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce testified before the committee last week that his star-studded
task force and the resources he plans to put at their disposal will be concentrating only on the expansion of our industries and the development of new markets. Anything to do with management of the forest will be left to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). Is it not that type of divided jurisdiction which got us into all this trouble in the first place?
For a while we thought that some of the new people we had brought into the Canadian Forestry Service, together with some fine professionals already there who understood the problems and knew the solutions, were getting their message across. When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was reorganized, the Canadian Forestry Service was to get that share which was earmarked for the forest sector, or so we thought. The new federal-provincial agreements of the type which had been signed with Nova Scotia were to include longterm forestry plans of at least 20 years' duration. The federal money was to be used to help industry and the Provinces to improve timber stands and plant new forests on lands for which there were no competing uses.
However, Industry, Trade and Commerce now appears to be taking charge again with its own set of priorities. What I find exceedingly difficult to understand is the apparent new frame of mind of our present generation of industrial leaders. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was in a very modest way involved in the business before I came here. In my day, all you wanted from the Government was a tax and royalty regime which compared favourably with that of our offshore competitors. The only help asked for from the Government was toward transportation, communication and community infrastructures which were required to develop new areas and get our products to market as cheaply and efficiently as possible. We kept arguing with government for a set of rules and standards in terms of environmental and other considerations which were firm and fairly applied without a whole lot of overlapping jurisdictions exercised by federal over provincial regulators, or rules that were overruled by conflicting mandates of different departments of government.
The new generation of corporate managers appears to have additional requirements from government. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce testified before the committee that he is receiving literally hundreds of applications daily from major and minor forest companies, applications which have been filed with his Department for grants and subsidies to rebuild and expand their plants and to construct new ones. They are looking to government and the taxpayer to take most of the risk out of their enterprises. As we know, the Government has been most accommodating to this new approach which provides it with the necessary justification to intrude even further into the private sector. That is a worrisome trend indeed.
Sir, in my humble opinion the forest industry needs a stable supply of feedstock that is commercially viable and accessible. As we know, 95 per cent of all our wood supply is publicly owned and therefore it is obviously in the public interest and is
May 30, 1983

a collective responsibility to keep our forests healthy and ensure an adequate supply.
Insects, disease and fire destroy two-thirds as much timber as is being harvested commercially every year. Much greater efforts must therefore be made to protect our forests from these predators. We must learn to manage our forests much more intensively. Our Scandinavian and American competitors spend many times what we commit in terms of money and human resources in the management area. For instance, we in Canada have a professional forester for every 380,000 hectares of forest land. In Sweden, the ratio is one for every 15,000 hectares.
In terms of research and development, the record is not much better. One major U.S. company spends more on forest products research every year than the total combined efforts of all of the governments and industry in this country. To produce the wood required by industry to keep its world market share, it is estimated that our scientific research efforts will have at least to double over the next ten years. This would require an additional 150 forestry post-gratudates per year for the next ten years. Our schools have produced 55 masters and a mere 11 doctoral degrees per year since 1978. Of those, nearly half were foreign students who have left for their home countries. Our forestry schools require massively increased block funding to permit them to respond to the challenge.
The federal Government must play a leading role in basic research in biotechnology, genetic engineering, soil chemistry and so on. Together with industry, we must invest much more in forest products research to develop new harvesting techniques, new products for a changing world market and techniques for reforestation and intensive stand management. The privatization in 1978 of our forest products labs did not bring about the results which had been predicted, even though this is clearly one area where industry can and should participate.
We suggest that a charge be levied on industry, either on stumpage or on the basis of the grade stamp, to provide a fair share of an expanded effort toward forest products research and development. We also recommend that federal funding for research and development, forest renewal and forest protection should be based on a fixed percentage of annual gross forest products sold averaged over a five-year period. As can easily be seen, this would provide greater stability and facilitate longterm planning of research projects and indeed ensure that they are carried through to conclusion.
In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with programs which the Government might initiate from time to time to reduce periodic manpower surpluses. I applaud the recent initiatives of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) designed to entice unemployed workers to work in our forests; but again, such special efforts can only reap maximum benefits if they are properly planned, managed and co-ordinated with existing silviculture programs by people who know what they are doing. Any moneys therefore committed by the Government for such special needs must be channelled through the Canadian Forestry Service.
Supply
There is even a role for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the superministry, particularly now that it has been integrated with External Affairs. Our industry needs help in finding new markets and developing them to suit our products. But again, it will be of little benefit to Canada to have the world's most modern harvesting plants without a stable and sufficient supply of raw materials or the markets to sell the products.
The Science Council of Canada recently published a statement which is worth considering. It points out the potential benefits of improvement in forest management policies. If the goals we have set ourselves are achieved, we would increase our sales by $22 billion, $12 billion of which would come from exports. We would create between 75,000 to 100,000 new jobs and generate in excess of $3 billion in additional tax revenues. Such is the magnitude of this important sector of our economy.
The report also points out the cost of failure to act. We would experience mill closures, increased unemployment and the economic destabilization of whole regions of our country whose livelihood depends on logging and wood preserving industries. A decline in our forest industry would have a pervasive effect, the report states, on our whole economy and our balance of trade. A thriving forest industry is essential to the prosperity of Canada.
Let us, as John A. Macdonald urged, look the subject in the face. The industry can no longer move on to exploit new areas of virgin timber. Even this great land has limits to the rich bounty of her forests.
We must do now with what we have and must care for it responsibly. The great philosopher Goltz said a century ago: "Of all nature's scenes, it is the woods in which all her secrets and all her favours are found together". Our forest are truly our most precious resource and our greatest riches. Let us realize this fact and begin to act accordingly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are any Hon. Members rising to ask question of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the Chair recognizes the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts).


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad that the mover of the motion had some kind words about my sincerity and my efforts in relation to the forest problems in Canada as well as kind words for the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley). In turn, I want to say to the Hon. Member that I recognize his strong commitment to this extraordinarily important industry in Canada, and recognize the work that he has put into it on the Opposition side. I welcome the very constructive approach that he has usually taken in the House and almost always in committee when we are dealing with these issues.
The language of the motion, with its absurd charges of neglect, is clearly erroneous. I do not think that even the Hon. Member who moved the motion believes there has been that

May 30, 1983
Supply
neglect. I can understand, of course, that he can hardly stand up on an Opposition day and move a motion which praised, recommended and supported the efforts we have made. I think what underlies his motion is a desire to discuss before the House and before the people of Canada our major most important industry, the challenges that face it now and that will face it in the future. I share his general expressions on the importance of the industry and the need for industry, provincial Governments and the federal Government to co-operate and tackle the problems it faces.
When 1 gave my first speech as Minister of the Environment in March, 1980, I dealt with the forestry problems which face Canada. I will not read the whole speech to Hon. Members, although I recommend it to them because it lays out what our hopes and aspirations were for forestry. It concluded as follows:
It is my firm intention to strengthen federal involvement in forestry. I am determined that, working with the Provinces, we shall create a climate that will permit and encourage the Canadian forest industry to stay on top in our increasingly competitive world.
I welcome the chance provided by the Hon. Member's motion to give a progress report on what we have been able to accomplish over the last three years and how we have been able to respond to that challenge which I described three years ago when I was given responsibility for this portfolio.
I think the most important thing to recognize, as I indicated I wanted to do, is that we have strengthened the Canadian Forestry Service. To head the service we brought in as Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Les Reed from the private sector. His appointment was welcomed by all Members of the House who believed that a man of his experience and capacity would give effective direction to the Canadian Forestry Service. Two years later, we can see that the promise of his performance, the hopes and expectations, have indeed been fulfilled.
We have had the transfer from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of the management of the forestry subagreements, which were previously the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. We have had in that time a remarkable strengthening both of the funding and of the man-years in the Canadian Forestry Service. The number of person-years of the Canadian Forestry Service has increased from 10,029 in 1980-81 to 11,047 in 1983-84. So that the need which we recognized for strengthening the personnel resources of the Canadian Forestry Service has been met. Its budget has increased from just over $48 million in 1980-81 to just over $60 million in 1983-84 an increase of almost $12 million in its budgetary expenditure. Therefore, there has been a strengthening in human resource and financial resources.
We have established the Canadian Forestry Strategy Committee, led by the Canadian Forestry Service. It is a coordinating Committee which directs the efforts of the federal Government on the forestry side. It seems to me that the Hon. Member who moved the motion does not really understand the role of the Committee, nor the role of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the role of the Minister of the
Environment within that context. He may be genuinely confused about that and I would like to take a few moments, later to describe how that works.
The foundation of the forestry policy which we described as the one we wished to pursue three years ago, and the one which we in fact are pursuing, is one which is based on cooperation with the provincial Governments. We recognize their ownership of the resource and we realize that there must be not a pulling apart or a moving at cross-purposes between the provincial and federal Governments in this area, but that we must work together and we must both work with industry. As a result, the foundation of the policy which the federal Government is pursuing is one which rests in the co-operative work which we have done in the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers with provincial Governments.
It was as a result of our discussions with the provincial Governments, as well as discussions with industry, that we came forward with the forest strategy paper in October, 1981. This is the paper to which the Hon. Member who moved the motion referred. It outlines our analysis of the problems in the Canadian forestry sector. This analysis was arrived at jointly with the Provinces and indicated the major focal points which we should deal with in an attempt to resolve the challenges with which the Canadian forestry sector is faced.
That forest strategy, Mr. Speaker, outlines several problem areas. The major ones it touched upon were the need to improve forestry statistics in Canada, the need to develop a stronger market strategy for the exploitation abroad of Canadian forest products, and the need to focus in on problems of human resource development, so that the industry would have the kind of specialists and skilled woodworkers available to it who will be needed in the future. There was also a concern for the insufficiency of research and development, and a concern to meet the problems of forest protection and forest renewal. Those were the major areas of concern which were crystalized in the forest strategy paper which we had brought forward, as a Government, in the Autumn of 1981, after our consultations with the Provinces.
I would like to touch upon how we have responded to those challenges which were presented in that paper. I believe almost a mere listing of the actions which the Government has taken would be an effective and substantive refutation of the charges of neglect which, in a formal and, I believe somewhat artificial manner, were brought forward by my colleague from across the Chamber. The first problem was that of the insufficiency of a forestry statistics base in the country.
In October, 1981, at the same time as the strategy paper was introduced, the Cabinet approved the increase of the resources flowing into that forestry statistics base by $500,000. The base at that time was just under $1 million of expenditure for the establishment of forestry statistics. This kept on increasing so that the level of increase over the original base of $1 million is up over $1.5 million by 1983-84, with an increase of 15 person-years in the Canadian Forestry Service devoted to
May 30, 1983

that work. Given the need to strengthen our support for forestry statistics research, that response has taken place.
The second area of concern was that of a market strategy. Quite clearly, the Hon. Member seems not quite to understand that the responsibilities in relation to marketing are largely in the hands of the Minister responsible for DRIE, my colleague from the Cornwall area. This is not, as the Hon. Member seems to believe, an example of some kind of "conflict"-I believe was the word he used-within Cabinet over forest responsibility. There is no such conflict; 1 can frankly tell him that. If he believes there is some sort of inner contention or tension or disruption, that there is some sort of battle over responsibilities going on between my colleagues and myself, I must say to him quite honestly that that is a figment of his imagination. There is no such tension or battle going on.
It is clear that my colleague the Minister does have responsibility in the areas of commercial development. He has appointed a committee of private sector people to advise him on how we might improve the marketing of Canadian forestry resources. He has not done that contrary to my wishes; he has done that with my strong support. I believe it is an extremely important and valuable move which he has taken, one entirely within his responsibilities.
I also have an advisory council which advises me on matters in relation to forestry. There is some overlap between the committee my colleague has established and mine. However, there is no confusion or conflict of purpose. In a Cabinet, necessarily, a variety of Ministers have responsibilities and they manage to co-ordinate the way in which those responsibilities are exercised, one with the other. The way we do that in relation to forestry matters is through the federal Forestry Strategy Committee which brings together in consultation on a regular basis the Departments which are concerned. That Committee is chaired by the head of the Canadian Forestry Service. It is a relatively simple and rational structure ascribing responsibilities to those Ministers who are best placed to fulfil them and to ensure that proper co-operation and coordination takes place at the federal level. There is no great mystery about that, no great complication and no great battle. It is a most effective way of trying to ensure that the responsibilities of the federal Government are co-ordinated. If, as the Hon. Member seems to suggest, those responsibilities were given entirely in to my hands, he would be the first one to suggest we were not adequately ensuring that the activities of other governmental departments which touch upon forestry were being considered and integrated in our over-all forest strategy. What we have done is establish an effective working mechanism which ensures that that co-operation and research take place.
As I have said, my colleague has brought forward these new structures to help develop and improve market strategy for Canadian forest products. I should say in passing, however, that he and my colleague, the Minister responsible for international trade, have been remarkably successful in assisting the private sector and industry over the past few months in order to protect the Canadian forest products markets in the United
Supply
States which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, were under threat of countervailing action. The industry, quite properly, organized itself to make representations in Washington, bringing a fair explanation of their case to the American authorities, an explanation which was successful in protecting legitimate Canadian interests. In that effort the federal Government, through myself and my colleagues, was effective, I believe, in providing support to the private sector representatives concerned.
The forest strategy in 1981 outlined the need for a concern for the improved development of human resources in the forestry field. We have acted. We have brought forward an increase which was announced in the Spring of 1982 of over SI5 million in support of human resources development.
We increased the support going to forestry schools throughout the country from just under $300,000, by adding another $1 million for the year 1982-83-in support of the forestry faculties across the country, at the University of New Brun-wick, the University of Laval, the University of Toronto, Lakehead University, the University of Edmonton and at the University of British Columbia. We have added S3.5 million in support for forestry schools in contract research and development, and for the employment of 300 summer students in 1983-84. Support in the development of human resources will increase to $6 million in expenditure in 1985-86. As I mentioned earlier, there is an increase in funding in that period of over $15 million in support of human resource development.
In order to improve our research capability, which was another aspect we focused on in the discussion of the forest sector strategy, we brought forward funding proposals for strengthening our efforts. We have signed research agreements with over half the Provinces to ensure there are neither overlaps nor gaps in our mutual research activities. By the end of this year we expect to have signed research agreements with all ten of the Provinces. We have increased our expenditures on research and development in the Canadian Forestry Service by $5.5 million for the year 1983-84. This will increase and improve the research into the production and increased utilization of our forest products in Canada. Again, in that area which was described as one of key concern in 1981, we have indeed responded.
One of the major ways in which we have responded to the forest challenge was our commitment in September, 1982 to enter into arrangements with each of the Provinces in support programs to meet the reforestation needs of the Canadian industry. Over the next two or three years we intend to sign with a forest renewal agreement with each Province, as we have already with the Province of Nova Scotia. An agreement with Prince Edward Island is ready to be signed. We will assist and encourage the Provinces and the private sector to cooperate in the needed objective of reforestation.
It is true, as the Hon. Member said, that one of the most desirable features of the forest renewal strategy is that in

May 30. 1983
Supply
signing these agreements with each of the Provinces we require as a basic condition that there be a long-term renewal plan in each Province with goals related to timber production, forest renewal and protection, and better utilization and increased productivity in the mills. That is and should be an essential precondition of the signing of our agreements. In this way we will ensure there is a better focusing on reforestation needs than there has been in the past.
In discussing what we were doing in this area, the Hon. Member, I think inadvertently, did not describe to the House exactly what our commitment is and why it constitutes such a novel commitment for us, as it relates to past practice. He quite correctly spoke of the quite strong need for forest renewal in Canada. We need by mid-decade to be spending something between S600 million and $650 million in Canada on forest renewal. That will virtually double the amount being spent at the present time by the industry, Provinces and the federal Government. Up to this point the federal Government has not been substantially involved in reforestation activity. It has always been considered that since the ownership and management of the resource was essentially in provincial hands, the federal Government did not have a major responsibility for participating in financial support for this area.
That position was changed by this Government. We have earmarked as a minimum, and it may turn out to be much more, federal expenditure of $130 million a year by 1985-86 for this purpose. I cannot say exactly what the figure will be because it will depend upon the negotiations with the Provinces. Of course, I cannot predict exactly what proposals they will make to us and how we will respond to them.
Now, the hon. gentlemen opposite seem to me to be arguing that is not a very significant increase over what we are doing at the present time, but in fact it is an increase to $130 million from virtually zero. It is true we have been spending something like $50 million a year under the DREE subagreements related to forestry matters, but those agreements were not specifically oriented to reforestation. It is also true we have been spending, under the Unemployment Insurance job creation program, money directed to short-term job employment opportunities in the forest sector, but that is and was always intended to be a one-shot program in relation to forest employment. So you would really be comparing apples and oranges to look at the $130 million a year to which we are committed for 1985-86 and compare it to the present level of expenditure on rather different Government programs.
The fact of the matter is that for the first time the federal Government is entering in a very substantial way into the support of reforestation in this country. What we believe will happen, and I certainly hope will happen, is that as a result of this initiative we will have an indication that we are prepared to support reforestation rather extensively, and we will get an equivalent response from the private sector and the Provinces, so that the $650 million figure which badly needs to be met will be met. It is an extraordinarily important step we have taken.
A few moments ago I touched upon job creation. That is another example of Government efforts in this area. Under the Unemployment Insurance job creation program we have added something like $35 million for 1982-83 alone in the forest sector of capital expenditures to assist with employment in the forest industry. It is short-term employment but it will have consequences for the longer term by improving Canada's wood supply. Obviously that $35 million is in addition to the $170 million which comes from Unemployment Insurance funds administered by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. To date, if memory serves me well, something like 11,000 to
12,000	positions have been created in the forest industry as a result of that program.
I see that you are ready to rise, Mr. Speaker. I regret that because it does not give me a chance to describe the most recent initiatives we have taken. If you could just spare me another 30 seconds.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Moody) Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Members of the House. I will not trespass on their patience for very much longer.
I would simply touch upon the announcements over the last few weeks, some of which may have escaped the attention of some Members of the House. The first concerns the support of the research facilities and the pulp and paper research institute's efforts, both in Montreal and Vancouver. We recently announced that we are increasing federal funding of those efforts by something like $17 million.
I hope it has not escaped the attention of Members of the House that we recently announced a very considerable expansion of our funding of capita! development of our research institutions all across the country. We made the commitment to go ahead with the Maritime Forest Research Centre in the Maritime forest complex in New Brunswick. We are committed to considerably expanding our research facilities in Ste. Foy, in Sault Ste. Marie, and in Victoria the home territory of the seatmate of the Hon. Member who made the motion. We have announced a very considerable strengthening of our research facilities.
Of course, it is not satisfactory to do research and undertake reforestation without taking into account the need to protect the forest resource. I could speak at much greater length about the activities of the fire control centre in Winnipeg which we established in conjunction with the Provinces. I certainly would have liked to have more time to describe the importance of the federal Government's commitment to support the acquisition of supplementary water bomber fleets across the country to provide a much more effective response to forest protection needs in Canada. This is an initiative we took as a response to the requests flowing to us from provincial Governments that we take the kind of action we have taken.
May 30, 1983

All of those things which have been done have been done very recently. I suggest that if any fair minded Member of the House were simply to review the list of what has been done in these major problem areas that we identified three years ago, he would have to say that there has been a vigorous effort and considerable success in responding to the challenges before us. Undoubtedly we still have more to do. There are still paths to be followed to the successful conclusion in the forest industry while it goes through the current transition period. We are moving from treating the resource as one to be mined to one which is a sustainable and renewable resource.
The record of the last three years is extraordinarily impressive as an example of Government commitment and our ability to work with the Provinces and the industry in order to respond to the needs of the Canadian forest industry.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister relies heavily on the advice of the forest sector strategy committee and the Council of Resource Ministers. I have no quarrel with all the documents and the strategy paper which have been published. I have no quarrel with the speeches he has made after he assumed his portfolio, since they were really a carbon copy of the speeches made by my colleague from Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) when he was Minister.
Could the Minister tell us what kind of advice he expects to receive from this new panel that his colleague, the Minister of DRIE, has established? First, does he know that this panel has organized itself into sub-committees, not to study export potential or other industrial needs proper, but to study management techniques of the resource? They are techniques which would lead to the renewal of our forests and related manpower requirements which are essentially a duplication of the advice he is receiving.
Have his officials been invited to participate in this new panel and does he know what kind of information this new panel is giving? While there may not be any quarrel in Cabinet, I can tell the Minister that the bureaucrats are quarrelling. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is digging in again and usurping the role that we had hoped the Canadian Forestry Service would once again play.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked quite a few questions; 1 will try to answer them in a general way. I am familiar with the work of this committee. I am aware that it has broken down into a variety of subcommittees. I have met with them along with my colleague, and have had two short but general discussions with them.
I am not concerned that they are looking at a variety of problems. I suppose there are times when one can receive too much advice on problems, but I do not believe that is a risk with respect to the forest sector. Ultimately they will report to my colleague, in a continuing manner, who will reflect upon their recommendations and come forward with suggestions which will be discussed with the Forestry Strategy Committee chaired by my Department. If we decide to make proposals to Cabinet as a result of their deliberations and recommendations
Supply
and after an assessment by the Forestry Strategy Committee, this will occur through that mechanism.
I am certainly not aware of any concern and my officials have not expressed any great concern to me about the establishment of this committee or its operations. Indeed, for some considerable time we were pressing my colleague's Department to focus in on the marketing, commercial and industrial management questions. We were happy to see them doing that. We endorse their efforts.
I am not aware of any concerns expressed along this line by anyone other than the Hon. Member. It may be that he feels there is some threat here, but it is not clear to me what he thinks that threat is or why it is so wrong. I can honestly say that this is not my sense of the situation. I welcome what is taking place and do not see how it can do any harm. It may provide some helpful counsel and I have undoubted and strong confidence in the ability of my colleague and myself to work together in a co-ordinated and co-operative way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Bearing in mind that Hon. Members are seeking to ask questions, the Chair is trying to distribute the opportunity in the limited time.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I paid as much tribute as I will to both Ministers. His colleague did not know of the existence of these subcommittees dealing with matters that are normally those of concern to the Canadian Forestry Service. I suppose he will pass the advice on to the Minister.
The Minister is aware that his Department's manpower strength has declined by 50 per cent over the last 12 to 15 years. Since he no longer has that 50 per cent of manpower strength, who is doing the work that needs to be done in terms of the serious neglect of our forests? While the Minister said the strength is increasing, it is not nearly increasing to the level at which it was 12 years ago. Who is doing the work that those people did 12 years ago?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would simply have to reiterate some of the points the Hon. Member has already made in his question. In some ways he has answered the question himself.
There was a great decline in person-years at the end of the 1970s and we both would agree that that was regrettable and unfortunate. I am sorry that that happened. We have turned that around over the past three years and have had an increase in the Canadian Forestry Service by something over 10 per cent.
Some of the work that was done previously is now being done outside Government. For instance, the Hon. Member knows that some of the operations which were previously undertaken in the practical application of the research side have been transferred to Forintek, which is outside federal Government service. The essential work done in bringing together the elements of the Canadian forest strategy in negotiation with the Province is undertaken by the Canadian Forestry Service. That does not mean that there are not civil

May 30, 1983
Supply
servants working in DRIE on forestry matters, particularly on the commercial side, and doing so in a useful and helpful manner. But the lead responsibility for the research, reforestation, human resources and forestry policies generally rests in the hands of the Canadian Forestry Service and the Minister of the Environment in Canada who is responsible for it. That is where the work will be done.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister concerned about the partial or total overlapping or duplication of services between the two levels of Government? If so, what mechanisms and strategies are in place for the resolution of that overlapping and duplication in order that the services offered by both levels of Government can be most effective to the recipients of that service?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not only concerned about overlaps but also about gaps in the services provided by both federal and provincial Governments.
I believe the short answer is two-fold. On the research side we have negotiated research agreements with the Provinces. We have signed agreements with five or six Provinces at the present time and expect to sign with all of them by the end of the year. Those research agreements are focused exactly on the question posed by the Hon. Member. They are an attempt to ensure that we are not duplicating research that is done at the provincial and federal level. The purpose of those agreements is also to try and ensure that there is not a failure to do some research that is required.
On the reforestation side, the mechanism for co-ordinating our efforts is the reforestation agreements which we are signing with each Province. Those agreements outline the kind of efforts that are taken at the federal level and those expenditures which are required at the federal level to meet reforestation needs, and describe at the same time the programs which the provincial governments will undertake with their expenditures. As well, they will describe some occasional joint programs which are funded and operated together.
In terms of reforestation, we are trying to ensure that there is not an overlap or a gap in services in the process of negotiating these agreements and the allocation of responsibilities as determined by the negotiated final agreement.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is quite brief. I think all Hon. Members of the House are aware that the amount which the Government takes in and puts back out in terms of taxation is very small. It amounts to about five cents return for every dollar taken. For example, in 1980, of $3 billion taken in tax and resource revenues, 43 per cent went to the federal Government and 57 per cent to the provincial Government. The federal Government only put in 5 per cent of every dollar which it took in.
I notice that the Minister referred to his policy statement, "A Framework for Forest Renewal". On page 5 the Minister
notes that this year, between DREE, UI Section 38 and DOE support, about 37 per cent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the time limit is very brief, if the Minister is to reply. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak, but would he make his comments briefly.


James Ross Fulton: By 1987 the Minister projected that would drop to 20 per cent. Could the Minister comment on what he expects UIC Section 38 and DOE support to be by 1987?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman was not in the House when I discussed that point earlier in response to some remarks which had been made by the mover of the motion. One must make a distinction between two things: short-term, one-shot programs oriented to employment creation as part of our general effort to create employment in Canada; and other expenditures which are continuing, which become incorporated in the A-base of government expenditures which go on from year to year.
I cannot forecast what Unemployment Insurance expenditures will be two, three or four years from now in the context of this program. What I can say is that on the base level of virtually zero, we have indicated that we will be spending at least $130 million on forest renewal by 1985-86. That is a very different kind of expenditure because the forest renewal expenditure which we are discussing is permanent, ongoing, built into the A-base.
The two items which the Hon. Member has compared in his question to me are items which are of an entirely different nature, chalk to cheese. I did touch upon the point in my remarks in response to what had been said by the mover of the motion. Perhaps he would like to consider those, if he did not hear them clearly, when he reads Hansard tomorrow.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Debate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and answers has expired, unless there is unanimous consent to extend it. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed,


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In that case, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one question of the Minister, if I may. It relates to the comments he made concerning the appointment of an ADM in his Department, taking full credit for it. I think that in the interests of honesty and justice he would have to admit, and I hope he will admit, that the provisions for expanding the forestry section of the Department were in hand under the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser); that the appointment to fill that particular position was made by the current Minister, although all the groundwork was done beforehand.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes and no, Mr. Speaker. My predecessor had a strong commitment to forestry development. 1 salute it, recognize it and welcome it. However, it is not true to say that
May 30, 1983

all that simply happened was that we implemented plans which were already in the works. That is not the case. Many of the programs which I have described were not considered previously to my appointment. The appointment of the head of the Canadian Forestry Service was my responsibility. It was not simply the formalization of something which had been agreed upon earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) for debate.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate on forestry. It is one of those industries which, while it is extremely important in terms of both the fabric of Canadian society and our chances and hopes for economic growth, receives little attention within this federal Parliament, due in large measure to the fact that the jurisdiction has rested mainly with the provincial Governments.
I should begin by reading the motion so that we can be clear as to just what is being said and what is not being said. The motion proposed by the Opposition states:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forests and its indifference to the threat posed to Canada's forests and forest industries by pests, fire, pollution and foreign competition, and calls upon the Government to stimulate the research needed to promote superior growth and diversify export products, and acknowledge its responsibility to protect the Canadian environment and the millions of Canadians whose livelihood depends upon Canada's forest resources.
In addressing the motion which is before us, bearing in mind the quote from our first Prime Minister in 1871-to which reference was made by the lead-off speaker in the debate-in which Sir John A. Macdonald recognized the dangers presented by the then and, in fact, continuing frontier psychology of cut and run, I cannot help but think of the biblical quotation, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". In this business, bearing that phraseology in mind, the silence in answer to that invitational phrase would probably be deafening from all quarters, not only in terms of the record of successive Governments federally, but in terms of virtually every provincial Government which has held office in this land since Confederation. Last, but most certainly not least, the private sector in this country has since time immemorial been one of the most irresponsible in failing its duty to protect the ongoing opportunities afforded by what is our nation's greatest resource.
In spite of recent and rather widespread general agreement among industry, management, labour and Government, as expressed perhaps most eloquently and most loudly, in drawing the whole issue to the public's attention, at the Canadian Forest Congress in Toronto in September of 1980-in spite of the rather widespread agreement stated eloquently at that time, we have still not seen, at least in those areas of our economy and those areas of Government in Canada most responsible-historically, constitutionally and practically, very many signs that this strengthened commitment to forestry is being kept.
I should say with regard to this aspect that there has been at least a reasonable amount of goodwill expressed in terms of the
Supply
motivations of both sides of the House on the question. The federal Government since February of 1980, and, 1 believe, the former Minister of the Environment responsible for forestry in the Government from 1979 through to February of 1980, began to show the beginnings of the kind of commitment which was expressed so well at that congress. However, in the Provinces, and I am speaking in particular of my own Province of British Columbia, we have seen exactly the opposite of any commitment other than in words.
Because the Provinces still have the prime and fundamental responsibility for forest management, forest growth, reforestation and the management of the industry, it is very regrettable to me and, I think, to most people who are concerned with this issue across the country that we have seen both the industry and the Provinces backtracking just when we have finally begun to see, under both the existing and the past federal Government, the beginning of acceptance of federal responsibility. I hope, as the federal Government indicates, that it will keep some of its increasing commitment to the major resource in this country, that we will not continue to see a falling off in commitment of both the private sector and the Provinces in anticipation that the federal Government will continue to assume a larger share of the responsibility and fill their vacuum.
I find it somewhat strange that in presenting its motion the Official Opposition seemed to forget that, while its Conservative Government placed some increasing emphasis in words and directions on the forest industry in its 1979 budget, it did not appreciably increase the Financial commitment of the federal Government. I return once again to the quotation, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
It strikes one perhaps not as hypocritical but certainly as passing strange to see the venom in the first few phrases of the motion before us. Also it is interesting to note that it is the very close political allies and bedfellows of the Official Opposition, whether it be the Social Credit Government in British Columbia or the Conservative Governments of Ontario and the Maritimes, who are responsible for the declining attention paid to what should be a vital commitment to this industry, at a time when the federal Government, however reluctantly and however slowly it is beginning to act, is beginning to make the necessary kind of commitment. Perhaps they do not talk to each other, but they should start.
The old definition of leadership, whereby we look to see which way the crowd is going, then run like the devil to get in front of it and appear as though we are leading, may be fine as regards a whole host of issues; but when it comes to a resource which requires 80 years or 90 years to grow, which is the case with our major species in British Columbia, it will not wash.
My own Party is not without sin in this regard in areas where it has had provincial power. It behooves us all, regardless of our concepts about leadership and partisanship, to rely

May 30, 1983
Supply
to some extent upon public opinion to push us into choosing one priority over another. In this nation the public sometimes has difficulty sensing the importance of the forest industry because it is everywhere and thus seems to be nowhere. It is scattered throughout some 300 communities across the length and breadth of the land. It does not therefore have the political sex appeal of an industry in which, when there are problems, some 10,000 people are affected in a given community. It is not that way, so there is little public consciousness, except that which is organized within the confines of the industry or among those who have some direct interest in the resource, of the kind which causes governments to feel compelled to act. The usual public pressure is often lacking.
I ask the Government-it may have been mentioned by my colleague previously; I know it has been on many other occasions-to look again at the recommendation of the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, that we have a forestry task force to travel Canada, not only investigating the facts as they affect the industry, but raising and keeping raised the public consciousness which is so important to prod all of us, provincially and federally, including the industry, into the action we recognize is vitally needed.
I would like to comment briefly upon the demand as most recently expressed by the Science Council of Canada. This proposal which has been broached many times by Opposition representatives of both Parties, is that greater consideration should be given to the immediate establishment of one ministry within the federal Government responsible for all areas related to the forest industry. The jurisdiction within the federal Government is now divided into some 23 departments and subdepartments. As was mentioned earlier, we may be seeing a renewal of the departmental tug-of-war with the appointment of the new industry advisory committee under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This may tend to direct attention-and federal attention as well-away from the area where Government has prime responsibility-the maintenance of the forest resource itself.
That past ignorance of our resource base is the greatest crime perpetrated on this industry and on the communities dependent upon it since Confederation.
It is largely the responsibility of the private sector-because that is the nature of our economy-to modernize its own plant capacity and to reinvest some of its earnings in its own industrial plant. The prime duty and obligation of governments, primarily provincially, but also the federal Government which, after years of inaction is now moving in to fill some of the vacuum, is responsibility for the resource. But it is mainly the responsibility of the companies involved in forest production, not government, to ensure the modernization of their own plant and their ability to remain competitive.
It was a matter of consternation to a number of my colleagues and myself that two or three years ago several hundred million dollars were put in to what was called the forest industry modernization program. This money was expended largely within central and eastern Canada. There is no wish on my part to decry the needs of the industry there, but we have some pretty old and outdated operations in western Canada as
well. We regarded the expenditures under the DREE program as being inappropriate in terms of the priorities of the federal Government or any government. At a time when it was obvious that unemployment in Canada would rise, particularly unemployment in the forest products industry, government funds, government incentives and government grants were used to modernize plants in such a way that they drastically curtailed employment and caused significant lay-offs.
We know that modernization must take place in order that we remain competitive. But given that it is the primary function of the private sector to modernize and keep modern its own plant capacities, that action was a totally inappropriate allocation of financial resources, particularly in view of the never ending backlog and continuing pile-up of backlog in the area of forest management. Whether it was backlog planting or keeping up with cutting practices, it was just a total misallo-cation of resources. 1 am afraid-and I am not the only one- that the emphasis which will almost naturally develop in this new forest industry task force, with its specific terms of reference will result in even more inappropriate allocation of funds, resources and priorities at a time when the crying need is to place more emphasis upon the maintenance of a healthy resource.
The situation in Canada in terms of our reforestation backlog is indeed frightening. Canada's forest companies cut about 8,000 square kilometres per year and plant or reseed about one-quarter of that area. In addition, about 2,000 to
3,000	square kilometres grow reasonably well on their own, but about 3,000 to 4,000 square kilometres per year are abandoned to lie idle and produce unusable scrub or trees. In the Province of British Columbia not only are we not keeping up with the current cut, but the backlog continues to increase. We have made no noticeable dent in the backlog of devastated areas.
Earlier in my remarks I mentioned what might happen if something is not done to force provincial Governments to fulfil their responsibilities. I think it was last December that the federal ministry made a commitment of approximately $60 million. I may be incorrect on that figure; I stand to be corrected. In return, the Provinces were expected at least to uphold their commitment to reforestation.
We did not hear anyone deny his share of responsibility. We assumed that that silence was general acceptance that the Provinces would undertake to fulfil what should be their historical role and responsibility, in return for an increased commitment from the federal Government, whose own financial buckets are not exactly overflowing.
What has happened since? We have seen another proposal. Give them an inch and they take a mile. I do not know whether the proposal was made officially, but it was certainly captured by the press in British Columbia. The proposal was that if the federal Government would pick up all the backlog reforestation in British Columbia, the Province would do its share by
May 30, 1983

maintaining the current situation and ensuring only as much is planted as is cut every year.
The provincial Governments and the Official Opposition want to diversify and give more power to the provincial Governments. How can we trust that kind of situation? If all they are saying is more, more and still more, that is worse than the Old Sam Gompers kind of trade unionism. They want more and more federal Government money expended, yet they are not prepared to fill their existing responsibility or even the diminished responsibilities that are now there since the federal Government is willing to take up its share.
Some Members of this House had better talk to their colleagues in the Provinces and in industry. According to the Associate Deputy Minister when he appeared before the committee a few weeks ago, it is not only in education but in terms of the commitment to reforestation that the companies and the Provinces have been falling back over the last two to three years. They claim some temporary financial hardship. However, I have not noticed the federal Government rolling in wealth over the last while.
It may be true that while we should not cast stones unless we are without sin, in this situation no one would talk about or do anything if he took that kind of advice literally and obeyed it. We have to admit that in the private sector, in the Provinces and the federal Government, it has taken a long time-and the Liberal Party has been in power for 19 of the last 20 years-to recognize that this is an emergency situation. Regardless of traditional areas of responsibility, the federal Government must move. After all, it is Canada's most important industry in terms of its contribution to our balance of payments.
Federal and provincial Governments, industry, management and labour must begin to work together as we successfully did, regardless of Party or interest, in combatting the unjustified appeal by some parts of the industry south of the border in its application for countervailing tariffs. That was a situation and a conflict we would have liked to avoid, but the fact that we did work together successfully presents us with certain examples and opportunities.
If we begin to work together in a constructive way, recognizing our responsibilities, we will commit ourselves to the maintenance of Canada's most important resource, not only to our economy in general, but to the fabric of those communities spread across this country which are the soul of our entire national being.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that strikes me about this debate is that Parliament is coming slowly back to its primary function of discussing something that goes beyond Party politics. Canada traditionally, certainly since 1905 at the federal level, has paid very little attention to resource industries. This tradition has grown up in our civil service. It affects Members of all Governments. It is believed that since the resources belong to the Provinces, there is nothing we have to do.
Supply
Periodically there is a slight movement by the Parliament of Canada in connection with resources. In 1953, in view of all this evidence, a very good friend of mine, the Right Hon. Louis St-Laurent, introduced the Department of National Resources. He set it up for the first time. He made a very significant statement that should be quoted in relation to this debate and in relation to the remarks by the Right Hon. John A. Macdonald. His statement was that we in Canada have dealt with resources in a complete absence of mind. Therefore, he set up the Department.
That was a forward step. Unfortunately for him, he collected his Department from the existing civil service, the Department of the Interior and so on. He put a whole group of sections together who held the same body of opinion that had been held all along; therefore the history did not develop very fast. When in trouble, civil servants simply suggest re-organization. No Department has suffered from this more than forestry.
I had the honour to present to Cabinet in 1959 that we take forestry out of my Department, give it the importance that it demanded and make it a full Department under a Minister. It is true that we laid down the fact that the future lay in the strong co-operation and support of the Department of Forestry by the Department of Agriculture. It was clear from the demand factor reported to the people of the world by the United Nations through the organization called FAO.
Ever since 1949, that organization of the United Nations warned the world of the declining shortage of wood and other types of fibre. Because of that, we got a Department of Resources in Canada in 1953. We went one step further and made it a separate Department of Forestry and got the support of agriculture at that time, the heavy-weight Department, to give it full support.
I would like to say that we have made some progress. We received agreement from all the Provinces, even P.E.I. We brought in the ARDA in 1961 with the support of all the Provinces. We said the Provinces own the resources and have complete responsibility, and we own the resources in Canada lands, which are much greater than theirs. We said we would develop it as a unified operation. That is why we started to work in 1957 on the Resources for Tomorrow Conference which dealt with the renewable resources. Those four volumes are must reading for any Minister.
Before I leave that, as part of that Resources for Tomorrow Conference it was recommended that the 11 Governments work together as equals. We set up the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. 1 am sorry that Walter Dinsdale is not here; he had the honour of setting up that Council. The first president was selected from the Provinces. Who do you suppose was the first president? It was a man who came to that conference absolutely opposed to the federal Government having anything to do with the resources of his Province. That man was then a Liberal. He is now the Premier of Quebec, the Hon. Rene Levesque. When he met with us not only at the

May 30, 1983
Supply
Resources for Tomorrow Conference but also at the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, he accepted the presidency. He said that that was the only way the federal system would work, the Provinces and federal Government co-operating in the interest of the resource, leaving the politics out until it has been decided what is right for the resource, and letting each section do what it is responsible for.
That was a high point in the forward motion at that time. Quite frankly, the last twenty years have been largely wasted. 1 read these fine words written by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the present Minister and other Ministers, but the only person who really tried hard to put some clout into it since 1963 was the Hon. Maurice Sauve. But he got tied up with Quebec politics and was shuffled out of the House. He is now the head of a paper company.
Reference has been made to the Cabinet decision of 1980, and the Minister says that he has kept this decision going and deserves credit for it. But the key objectives in the Cabinet decision of 1980 were to go for the markets and for new uses for forests. This is what I want to deal with in the next ten minutes.
The phrase "research and development" is widely used. In forestry, it could mean selective breeding. We have done wonderful work in selective breeding both in Petawawa and in the Provinces. Petawawa is where the Canadian Forestry Service field work operates. But the need for new forest uses and market demands has not been fully met. These are the two things I want to emphasize.
Genetic breeding has long been used in Europe. The federal Department used genetic breeding on one or two varieties of trees, and the work was carried out in the applied sense with the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia. The Province of Ontario used the federal Department of Forestry's work on genetic breeding and applied it to a tree which we look on as a weed, a tree called the poplar tree or the aspen tree, which was crossed genetically with several varieties. The Government turned this knowledge over to the various Provinces. Ontario took it up and in a ten-year program demonstrated that this weed tree would produce five to seven tons an acre per year.
The Province of British Columbia applied this knowledge to the alder tree, a tree which is almost considered a weed in British Columbia, and produced 15 to 20 tons an acre per year. That can be translated into dollars and cents. I can recall that in my day 1 fought hard to prove that I could get $30 per acre per year from forestry for every farmer in the Ottawa Valley and in the marginal areas of eastern Canada. That proposition was accepted by the Treasury Board which set aside $2 billion for it. I was the Minister of Agriculture at the time.
This concept of forestry, not only reforesting but reforesting with the right type of tree for the market, was to be put into the hands of farmers. That is where the costs come in. It was the intention to get all that money back from the farmers when
they got into a profit position, which was demonstrated to be a cost of $30 per acre per year, and then they would pay back 15 per cent of their profits. It was the same technique as was used in Malaysia.
I tell you these things, Mr. Speaker, because they are still necessary. There are new programs which will give us the opportunity to help all of eastern Canada, particularly the boreal forest area. Nothing of a positive nature has been done. I know that some work was done by the Quebec Government in the Gaspe and that some work was done by the Godbout Government of Quebec in the 1930s with forest plots. The rich areas of the Ottawa Valley, all around Georgian Bay and all through the clay belt right through Quebec and into the Maritimes, should be the wealthiest agricultural and silvicultural area of the world.
Thanks to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), we have now come to the realization that we must put our views forward, though not in a partisan way. No Party should bring partisanship into the resource industry, whether it be agriculture, forestry, mining or anything else, because the resource industry is our lifeblood. The key opportunity exists now in the field of markets.
For too long now the forest industry in the far west has concentrated on long-term agreements for paper with the United States. The lumber industry is more controversial and more competitive. At one time the Japanese log market was being developed, but when I came back from China in 1964, I pointed out to the forest industry the tremendous opportunity there was for markets in China. China is 80 per cent mountainous country with a lot of overburden, land that is good for growing trees. I know that the Japanese had burned those hillsides down during the war so that the Chinese would have no place to hide. I know that the Chinese people from every village and city volunteered millions of man-hours to plant those hillsides in the evenings.
In China, there are factories with long production lines. When a workman is setting his machine, he must run all the way down the production line, twice the length of this Chamber, to study the blueprint. He then must run all the way back and set the machine. He might perhaps have to go back again to revise his figures. What would this workman do if he had papers in front of him? Even school children are only allocated four or five little pieces of paper two inches by three inches each day. What a market for paper there is in China.
I say the same thing today as I said to the delegates from China who were here three weeks ago. I told them that what I recommended to them in 1964 is still true. The way that Canadians can help them most is by using our knowledge and know-how to protect the Chinese hillsides from erosion and to develop a forest industry for China over 50 or 60 years that the whole world will need. I told them that they would have to buy considerable supplies and receive much knowledge from us. I told them that they should set up joint enterprises with Canada so that we may exchange our knowledge and create a tremendously increased future for both nations in the forest industry.
May 30, 1983

In 1964 I suggested to the Canadian forest industry that it dedicate 10 per cent of its production to the Chinese market and that it combine legally for export purposes as allowed by law; but it did not want to give up that nice, fat market in the United States. We are paying a heavy price for that today.
I am not trying to pin the tail on any donkey. I am simply saying that the opportunity is still there. The Chinese delegation came here three weeks ago. They know that the proposal that I made to them in 1964 is long overdue and they want to do something about it. As the Minister spoke, I wondered if he was aware that the Chinese delegation was here and if he was aware of their tremendous interest in exchanging our products for 20, 30 or 40 years to build up their forest industry. I wondered if he was aware of the tremendous need the Chinese have for lumber. If you have ever lived in a cement house, Mr. Speaker, with cement floors and cement walls-and you know how clean the Chinese people are-you would know what a wonderful thing it would be to have a wooden frame in the window and to have a wooden floor. The need for paper in China for even the most elementary uses boggles the imagination. The same thing applies to the whole Pacific area and applies especially so to Africa.
In summary, my ideas are the same as they were in 1964. Read my speech in the Fall of 1964, which is nearly 20 years ago, a speech which put my proposals on the record of the House. There proposals included joint enterprises, international commodity agreements, the setting up of legal combines recognized by the Government for export and research for private enterprise, the setting up of international selling agencies that sell to these countries, and if these countries do not have the money, we would sell their produce so that they would have enough money to pay for it. I could go on listing these proposals, but I think that I have demonstrated what I mean.
In conclusion, one thing that was mentioned in the ministerial statement from Cabinet back in 1980 was other uses for the forests. We know that the forests are the greatest producers of waste in the world and waste is a much bigger asset than is the product. The Crosbie budget, which was referred to a moment ago, was a small step toward getting at that waste by making it legal for people to have stills, for example. What is important is the animal feed that comes out of the forest-plywood, the lumber, the pulp, and finally the energy.
Twenty-five years ago the average production from agriculture in the Ottawa Valley was $7 per acre per year. I was able to persuade Treasury Board that $30 per acre per year in the future would warrant a $2 billion expenditure over 20 years. I know that with these types of uses today we can produce $200 per acre to $300 per acre per year from so-called wasteland and we can restore Ontario to its earlier position of a great forest and farm area.
Sixty per cent of the land that was opened up in Ontario has gone back to bush. Let us put a good type of bush in place and let us make money from it. At the same time as we are making
Supply
money we know that we are helping a lot of people all over the world. Whether it is a woman who has a floor to sweep instead of cement floor, the child in the school who has a paper to work with, or the worker who has a blueprint in front of him instead of having to run a quarter of a mile every time he wants to put a setting on a machine, it is enough to gladden the heart. Not only do we make money in this way but we help our fellow man.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. I first become involved in forestry matters when I was an assistant to the Hon. Maurice Sauve. I have tried in some ways to carry on the work he did at that time and which the Hon. Member has touched upon.
The Hon. Member mentioned the importance of relations with China on forestry matters. I wonder if he is aware that I have visited China and discussed forestry relations with the Chinese Government. In about a month's time I will receive a visit from the Chinese Minister of Forestry in order to carry on these discussions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this is the most important day for forestry that this House has ever witnessed. You might even suspect that the Government had actually inspired the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) to name this as "forestry day". It provides us with a golden opportunity to record the accomplishments which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has achieved. He will be remembered, I assure you, as the most successful advocate of forestry that this House has ever seen.
It is my pleasant task to describe for you the cornerstone of the Government's forestry strategy, forest renewal, and then tell you how it is being implemented from coast to coast. At the outset however, I want to remind the House that the Government has pledged over $1 billion to Canadian forestry in the last two years. This is not neglect, Mr. Speaker; quite the contrary. The $1 billion represents a fundamental commitment to forest renewal, and to the wise use and conservation of Canada's most valuable natural asset, its forests.
May I begin by reminding the House that the most important issue facing the forest sector is timber supply. Local shortages of wood at a competitive cost have emerged in every Province. In the past, it was customary to harvest virgin timber and leave nature to replenish the supply. In effect, we mined the virgin forests and gave too little thought to the future crop. Forestry is now in a critical transition stage where mining must give way to systematic forest renewal and harvesting.
The limits are in sight for premium softwood sawlogs in many locations and supplies of larger, higher quality hardwood logs have been largely depleted. Pulpwood shortages are emerging in communities across the country. Only a fraction of our forests are being managed for sustained production, even today. In most cases the timber resource is renewable,

May 30, 1983
Supply
both promptly and adequately, only if action is taken immediately following harvest or natural calamity.
Even in British Columbia there are projected shortfalls. These can be prevented only by a major improvement in forest renewal performance.
The best evidence we have shows that only four Provinces have uncommitted softwood timber reserves and that these reserves are largely uneconomic because of the high costs associated with remoteness, low volume per hectare and other factors. The Provinces appear to be approximately in balance and the remaining four are in a deficit position.
Another important factor in timber supply is that averages for a large region tend to cloak severe local problems. For example, a surplus of low-quality fir pulpwood is of no value to a sawmill designed for large diameter pine and spruce logs. And a surplus of timber in one area may be too costly to move to a deficit area, even if the specifications match perfectly.
The hardwood resource contrasts sharply with the softwood situation described above. There is a marked surplus of hardwoods, with only one quarter of the allowable cut being harvested at the present time. But the hardwood expansion potential is limited almost exclusively to poplar and aspen types.
The higher value hardwood species, maple, ash, birch and walnut have been severely overcut. Canada is now importing hardwood logs, lumber and veneer for furniture and other industries. The majority of these high-value hardwoods are located on private land in the Maritimes and the southern portions of Quebec and Ontario. Even today, serious forest renewal is practically non-existent in most hardwood forests on public and private land. Interest in managing the hardwood resource is lagging at least a decade behind that for softwoods.
This description of Canada's timber supply may sound exaggerated to some, but it has been verified by recent inquiries in each of the Provinces. To others it may convey a message of pessimism and hopelessness, although this is certainly not intended.
The existing industry can be stabilized and indeed launched on a new period of expansion, provided that the challenge of forestry is understood and accepted. What is needed now is action to harness the expertise and the necessary financial resources.
Before I describe what is actually being done, allow me to remind the House of what we mean by "forest renewal". First, it is prompt regeneration, after harvest or natural losses from fire and insects. Second, it is timber stand improvements following regeneration, such as spacing, pre-commercial thinning, weeding of brush and other competing vegetation, and fertilization.
How does forest renewal fit into intensive forest management? Intensive forestry embraces all the above, and in addition includes inventory work, harvesting, protection from fire, insects and disease, planning, access roads and administration.
Forest renewal means that higher quality timber can be produced in a shorter time. It also means lower logging and handling costs to the extent that intensive treatments are applied near manufacturing plants and on less rugged terrain. The longer run gains will include higher volumes per hectare, more uniform tree size at maturity, and less decay, waste and breakage. Each of these will tend to lower costs of delivered wood and thereby contribute to our competitive capability in export markets.
The additional timber can often be made available as soon as management is accelerated. You may not have to wait until the newly planted tree matures before achieving benefits. Where an adequate volume of mature timber is still available in a timber supply area, intensive forestry gives rise to the "allowable cut effect". Simply stated, you can harvest more if you grow more. Unfortunately, the mature timber may be so badly depleted in a given area that no increase in the annual harvest is possible for two or three decades. In these cases forest renewal is geared to survival rather than expansion of the industry.
As a general rule, however, forest renewal promises substantial gains. Experience in Canada and in similar northern forests elsewhere has demonstrated that gains of 50 percent to 100 per cent or more can be achieved in volume available for harvest. Additional benefits include timber of lower cost and higher quality than can be secured through closer utilization or harvesting remote stands.
Before a decision is made to push back the forest frontier in some remote area, it would be prudent to consider first the associated public and private costs, and then compare what the equivalent expenditure would yield if directed to intensive management on lands adjacent to the mills. Today's high energy and transportation costs make it imperative that we begin to examine benefits and costs in this way.
Current expenditures on forest renewal by senior governments and industry are believed to be in the order of S300 million annually. Recent information from the Provinces indicates that an additional $100 million will have to be spent just to sustain existing harvest levels. If we are to increase the harvest in line with increasing demand for forest products and to reflect economic development opportunities, it is expected that a total annual expenditure of $650 million will be required by all parties. The foregoing estimate is based on a regular program involving increasing replanting on current cutover from 200,000 hectares to 500,000 hectares annually with genetically superior seedlings, and on increasing silvicultural treatments, such as weeding, spacing and fertilizing from
100,000	hectares to 400,000 hectares annually.
In addition, a special program area is the backlog of idle forest land. It has been mentioned as a medium-term project where federal initiative would be welcomed by Provinces and industry alike. Rehabilitation of at least 100,000 hectares annually over a decade would bring back into production a
May 30, 1983

good share of the neglected land which is adjacent to producing mills. The costs of keeping up with the current harvest and catching up with the backlog of neglected land are estimated to be S650 million annually in 1982 dollars.
Of course, better forest management will cost more. On the other side of the ledger are the expected benefits from the increment in available timber volume which, together with the anticipated increases in both real price and value added, could be expected to yield the following dividends for the Canadian economy annually: employment opportunity for 75,000 to
100,000	people in forest renewal, logging and manufacturing; increased annual sales of $22 billion, or double the present value; additional exports worth $12 billion, also double the present value; consequent benefits in related supply and service industry; increased tax revenue in excess of $1 billion.
The net revenue picture needs to be underscored. An expanding industry with a healthy resource base would generate additional tax revenue to senior governments which would be several times the additional forestry costs. In contrast, further neglect of forestry would quickly lead to widespread economic dislocation and bills of a different kind would fall due. The regional impact of the strategy would be pervasive because of the widespread importance of the sector. In the Maritimes, the first effect would be to stabilize the wood supply of the existing industry. Eventually increases in yield would allow increases in mill production. Increases in production should be possible much sooner in parts of Quebec and northern Ontario. This is particularly true of the Lakehead region where much productive forest land was not regenerated. The prairie Provinces would benefit materially from development of technology to use poplar. The greatest long-term impact, however, would probably be in British Columbia, which currently produces half of Canada's timber.
Some would argue that the federal Government has no responsibility for renewing the forest, citing provisions in the Constitution Act of 1867. Nevertheless, a historical review of federal forestry activity reveals a long-standing commitment to the forest resource and its related manufacturing sector. The pay-off has been directly in line with obvious federal responsibilities and priorities, such as: stable growth in employment; foreign exchange earnings; regional economic development; and environmental quality.
The allocation of funding responsibility varies from one Province to another. The provincial forest services have traditionally concentrated on silviculture and forest protection, with the federal Government tending to focus on silviculture by way of cost-sharing agreements and on forestry research. The private sector has concentrated on items related to timber production, such as inventory, working plans and roads, giving less attention to forest renewal and protection.
The provincial Governments now pay for the majority of forest renewal on their Crown lands, either through direct expenditures, payments to industry for work done under tenure agreements or indirect payments to industry through a stump-age offset system. Over the past ten years stumpage prices have risen dramatically. The most notable example is in Quebec, which recently announced an increase in annual
Supply
stumpage charges of 130 per cent. Other Provinces have either increased stumpage or are planning to do so. The trend is in response to a scarcity of general revenues and to the need to fund increased forest renewal programs.
The private sector's direct share in forest renewal is expected to increase sharply in this decade, judging from recent moves in several Provinces. In Newfoundland, the two major companies are now carrying nearly half the costs. They are spending $4 million annually on Crown provincial land, compared with less than half a million dollars two years ago. New Brunswick's new legislation puts a heavy demand on the large freeholder to manage land intensively. Saskatchewan is studying means to increase industry and Crown Corporation responsibility for renewal. Quebec will soon place about half the forest renewal burden on companies.
One of the principles stated in the document "Forestry Imperatives for Canada", and subscribed to by the federal Government, is that responsibility for funding maintenance of the resource should be proportionate to the benefits received. This is actually a jointly held view of the provincial and federal Governments, adopted by them within the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers.
There is another fundamental fact involved here. Federal leadership is absolutely essential to the wise use and conservation of natural resources. Forest management in Canada since 1945 has depended in large measure on joint programs. Many will recall the old Canada Forestry Act which provided complementary federal funding to the Provinces. That was before the days of DREE general development agreements and forestry subsidiary agreements. Federal leadership will be expressed once again in the new generation of forest renewal agreements, beginning with the Nova Scotia agreement in the summer of 1982. A new agreement will be implemented shortly in Prince Edward Island, and negotiations are progressing in all the other Provinces. This Government's objective is to have agreements in place in all ten Provinces by the end of this year.
In summary, there is a great deal to be done. The nature and scope of this work is fully appreciated by the federal and provincial Governments as well as by industry. Now we must find the resources to support the Canadian Forestry Service which has the lead role for the forest sector.
Forestry in Canada is indeed undergoing a transition, from exploitation of the resource to more systematic forest management. The momentum towards forest management must be increased in order to ensure that the resource is capable of sustaining current and expected levels of economic activity. Indications are that the present levels of forest renewal activity, the most important aspect of forest management, will not sustain a harvest level sufficient to fulfil future needs.
Finally, the climate for co-operation has never been better across the country. I hope and expect that all the Parties in this House will join with the Government in the cause of forest renewal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. Order.

May 30, 1983


Donald W. Munro: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
[ Translation]


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.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to degrade our vital land resources because there exists a fundamental interdependence between energy and land resources in the world and Canada. As our farm land is continually shrinking, the need for conservation of this scarce resource becomes more and more pressing. Only 13 per cent of our total land area can support agricultural activity, yet substantial crop land is lost annually by soil erosion. The continual degradation of land requires increased quantities of fossil energy in the form of fertilizers and other inputs to offset lost soil productivity.
According to calculations by U.S. specialists in soil erosion, an estimated five-gallon equivalent of fuel per acre is used to offset the soil erosion loss on crop land. On the estimated 281 million acres in production in Canada, 1.4 billion gallons of fuel equivalents have to be used annually to offset past losses. This equals some 40 million barrels of oil annually, or about 30 per cent of our oil imports. The direct cost of erosion to the prairie farm economy is estimated at $368 million a year. The total soil loss due to erosion equals a yearly yield reduction of more than 71,000 tonnes of wheat. These high figures point out how acute the problem of soil erosion is and its implications in terms of future high energy inputs and lost potential.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, we have heard nothing from the Government about
its plan to turn native Canadians into Liberals-otherwise known as the Indian Economic Development Fund-since a Cabinet document was revealed here in the House last week. As you know, that was the document which advised that money from the fund is not to go to the people who need it, or for social services such as housing. It also said that the board of the proposed Crown corporation should consist of native people who are Liberals, and not representatives of native political organizations. It proposes to produce yet another classification of Indian "Luie", or "Liberal urban Indian entrepreneur".
At the time it was first uncovered the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested it might be a forgery, but when we attempted to table it here in the House the Liberal Members refused to allow that. We would like to think a fund exists. God knows the Indian people of Canada need and deserve some attention from the federal Government, although I do not think this callous "buy a Liberal Indian" plan is exactly what they had in mind.
Instead of making lists of ridings where Indian votes could be crucial, why does the Government not make lists of useful, humanitarian programs it could implement with this fund? We need another special recovery program to try to recover a sense of decency and honour in dealing with Canada's native people.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, Saturday, more than 15,000 demonstrators marched in the streets of Montreal to draw the attention of governments to the unemployment problem, and there was a demonstration here today as well. These demonstrators were demanding the right to steady employment and policies aimed at not only maintaining existing jobs but also promoting full employment, as set forth in the United Nations Charter of Rigths. Furthermore, the Federal Government should adopt policies that will stimulate the economy, meet the needs of Canadians, ensure greater economic independence, bring about tax reforms aimed at taxing the richest and largest corporations and finally, develop an industrial strategy that recognizes the right to work. In addition, concrete measures must be taken to fight against social inequality which has grown steadily in the last twenty years. These specific and concrete demands from Canadians across Canada, in Montreal, Regina, Toronto and Saskatoon, are addressed to the federal Government. It is now up to the Government to act.
May 30, 1983



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, architects, engineers, and lawyers, having completed their studies and complied with the regulations of their special regulating bodies, deserve to be given consideration in practising their speciality in their local community, and they should expect the support of the various levels of government. Two highly respected architects in my constituency, who have excellent qualifications and experience, feel that a type of discrimination is being shown in the awarding of contracts by the different levels of government whereby local firms are ignored in favour of larger firms, usually from outside the local community.
Under federal Government procedures, when a project is announced a competition is held to choose the architect to be granted the contract. The same is true at the provincial and municipal levels. The competition is based on a number of factors, including the design submitted, the record of previous projects completed, the capitalization behind such architects, as well as the engineering firm with which they work. It appears that a small number of firms, generally located in larger urban centres, have attracted a larger team which wins the majority of contracts.
This practice is unfair to a number of highly trained, locally-based professionals who have skills as competent as those in the larger firms. These smaller local companies should be awarded more of these contracts. This would help to direct more Government funds to local architects, and there will be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-155 has inflamed separatism in Alberta. Hundreds of loyal Albertans are now asking: will Alberta ever get a fair deal from Ottawa?
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) astonished and pleased Albertans when he indicated that he would follow the Gilson recommendations and pay the shortfall of the Crow to the producers. In every part of the Province hope was rekindled. Finally, Alberta hog and cattle producers and processors were going to be able to build their industry and find new markets. But the glad tidings were shortlived. The same Minister, ashamed even to face the House, announced across the street from the Parliament Buildings that the Government had changed his mind, that the shortfall would not be paid to the producers after all but to the railways, thus sentencing Albertans once more to be "drawers of water", for the benefit of Quebec.
It is rumoured that the Minister wanted to give the West a chance but that the Quebec Liberal Caucus and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), helped by Ministers from Quebec, forced him to change his mind. If this is so, the Hon. Minister should resign rather than remain the chattel of one Province. This action told western Canada and the world that the interests of Quebec come first, and the rest of Canada can have the crumbs. Mr. Trudeau is not heading the Government of Canada, he is the head of a Government of and for Quebec. If this Liberal Government is hell bent on breaking up Canada, it is surely going about it in the right way. 1 give fair warning: Albertans are not going to accept this kind of treatment very much longer.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Government does not seem satisfied enough with having many fishermen in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick out of work; now it is carrying the fight into the Magdalen Islands.
The fight between the Quebec and Canadian Governments over the licensing of six fishing vessels owned by Madelipeche Incorporated is wreaking havoc on the livelihood of 500 families on the Magdalen Islands. The Minister stated in the House last week that his primary concern is to prevent a precedent being set. While this may have some merit further down the line, the immediate problem is to get those fishermen and shoreworkers back on the job. They have already lost a third of their fishing season. In a region which is under severe economic hardship, such a loss is devastating.
The Minister and his Quebec counterpart can continue their long term negotiations, but it is imperative that they first enter into an interim agreement which would allow fishing to resume and the plant to reopen. This dispute is between the two Governments, and it should be dealt with in Government offices, not on the backs of the fishermen and their communities.



FINANCE


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Finance Minister (Mr. Lalonde) have the unmitigated gall to criticize our ally, the United States, for its high deficit and interest rates as causing our economic woes, when our own deficit is at record levels and is nothing but a deferred tax being foisted on our children.

May 30, 1983
Oral Questions
Our deficit must come down. This can readily happen if the Government cuts its own prolifigate spending, such as wasting $245 million on its own information and advertising budget, the $350 million spent on Liberal caucus, the $4 billion it is owed on loans to foreign countries, which are really grants; the visible $454 million it spends on bilingualism plus the invisible amounts; the $33 million first quarter loss of CDC, not to mention the $2 billion capital used up in the CIDC Maurice Strong pork barrel, and the $2.3 billion wasted in Canadair.
As well there is the $700 million spent on the white elephant, Mirabel, which alone is the equivalent of giving 800,000 people a free round trip ticket from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver, B.C.
This is just the tip of the iceberg and Canadians are feeling the freeze. The U.S. is not the economic culprit. This Government is. Instead of criticizing the United States, the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister could take a lesson from free enterprise which took over the Summit meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia, which cost 90 per cent less than the Summit meeting held in Canada in 1982.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Some weeks ago I raised with him the issue of quarterly installments of income tax payments made by senior citizens. At that time the Minister indicated that he might take some steps to mitigate that policy in order not to unduly prejudice certain senior citizens whose income, while it might be taxable, was so modest that it was hardly worth while insisting that they make quarterly payments.
Can the Minister bring us up to date on what progress he has made within his Department so that those senior citizens who must pay very modest income taxes will no longer be forced to pay them by quarterly installments as a result of a recent innovation in departmental policy?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member must have a special talent for guessing what is being discussed in the Department, because I happened to raise this matter again this morning with my Deputy Minister for the Income Tax Division of the Department of National Revenue. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to ignore the Act as it stands and the provisions made under the Act. I have asked my officials to review those provisions and to
find out exactly how many senior citizens have to pay quarterly instalments as a result of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and also because of the way their income is distributed. We are still analyzing and collecting this information. Once the data have been studied, we shall be in a position to make a decision.


PRIOR PAYMENT OF TAX ON INCOME FROM CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I understand the provisions of the law. I am not encouraging the Minister to suggest that senior citizens should break the law. I am concerned with the unjust imposition of the law in situations which simply do not warrant it.
If the Minister and his departmental officials are reviewing the situation, would they pay very special attention to a not uncommon situation where a senior citizen's sole source of income, other than old age pension, is interest from Canada Savings Bonds which comes due November 1 each year? Many citizens who receive this modest extra income are being asked to pay three quarterly installments toward their tax before the receipt of their interest from Canada Savings Bonds. No one can be more patriotic than those senior citizens. Will the Minister undertake to give very careful consideration to that situation in his departmental review?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I can make a formal commitment only with respect to the case mentioned by the Hon. Member, namely, a senior citizen who receives income from Canada Savings Bonds which are probably income the individual has been saving throughout his or her working life. We are going to pay special attention to this kind of situation in order to avoid putting an undue burden on senior citizens who have only one source of income as in the example given by the Hon. Member and who would have to pay income tax in quarterly instalments, before having received their income. That is the kind of situation we are examining, and I can assure the Members of this House that we are giving this problem our special attention.


EMPLOYMENT
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I suppose the Minister saw the headlines this morning with reports on the great march for jobs, and he must have noticed
May 30, 1983

the demonstration by unemployed workers at the entrance to the Parliament Buildings.
Over 20,000 people met in Montreal this weekend and hundreds more in Regina, Saskatoon and Toronto, while several hundred people are demonstrating in front of the Parliament Buildings. Madam Speaker, these people are protesting on behalf of over 1,500,000 registered unemployed Canadians and as many welfare recipients who are living on the meagre pittance provided by Government welfare programs.
Can the Minister inform the House when he and his Government will finally understand that the time has come to help these three million Canadians, the majority of whom are willing to be active participants in Canada's economy, by working and not by living off their friends, those Canadian workers who are still employed?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious situation, and our Government has established a number of programs. When the budget was brought down, we established the NEED program with the budget of $750 million for groups that have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. My Parliamentary Secretary will be meeting groups of unemployed Canadians this afternoon to continue discussions on this subject.


GOVERNMENT'S YOUTH EMPLOYMENT POLICY
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Everyone knows that employment programs set up by the Government are temporary programs which create temporary jobs, and that in the final instance, very few permanent jobs are actually created. For instance, the Minister is well aware that the NEED program or the Student Employment Program will end some time, by the end of the summer. It is unconscionable and unacceptable that Canadians should invest billions and billions of dollars in the education of our young people and then find that today, 600,000 of them are unemployed, with as many on welfare.
Could the Minister inform the House what his Government intends to do to make young and dynamic Canadians more confident in a future that right now seems pretty bleak?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I find it strange because some of our fellow Canadians, Members of this House and the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party want to do away with job creation programs and it was the Government that established them in the first place.
As far as we are concerned, we are setting up training programs under the National Training Act and billions of dollars are being budgeted for the training of young people in Canada.
Oral Questions


CREATION OF PERMANENT AND PRODUCTIVE JOBS BY PRIVATE SECTOR
Donald W. Munro: Could the Minister perhaps inform the House whether he has anything else to offer besides make-work programs which only last a few weeks, in other words, could he not use his imagination, and, in co-operation with his colleague at the Department of Finance, make it possible for the private sector to create permanent and productive jobs so that Canadians who are unemployed today will be able to earn their living with dignity tomorrow?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon. Member is not familiar with the new programs that were announced in the budget. For instance, the ACCESS program for young people, which, in co-operation with the private sector, would create jobs through a Federal Government grant for young people and the first job after completion of formal training.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is now back from her meeting with the Minister of Health for Alberta.
The Minister finds herself in the position of having to accept the actions of the Alberta Government or, come October 1, she can withdraw all federal funding from Alberta, thus risking an interruption of services and a federal-provincial political crisis that would entail great risks as well. However, she does have a third option and a more positive one than either passive eloquence, which is what we have received so far, or total war on Alberta, which is the only option that the existing legislation provides her, that is, to table in the House a Canada Health Act which provides the federal Government with a more flexible response to delinquent Provinces, which clarifies and strengthens the five basic principles of medicare, and which would constitude a truly viable and more positive political option around which pro-medicare Canadians could rally. Will she now table such an Act?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As soon as we are ready, Madam Speaker, and I count on the Hon. Member to obtain the official approval of Mr. Larry Desjardin, the provincial Minister of Manitoba, for such an Act strengthening medicare. I have not heard many provincial Ministers up until now, if I have heard any, saying

May 30, 1983
Oral Questions
that they are against user fees and other extra charges. I do not recall having heard that clear message. Canadians are waiting for it.
What happened in Alberta has shown us that even user fees, which Provinces impose as taxes on the sick, really are detrimental and, contrary to what the provincial Ministers believe, cannot be policed by the political process for the simple reason that they do not equip their citizens with the basic facts and information. That is what I am presently reviewing with regard to the future Canada Health Act, to ensure that it deals with everything that can happen against medicare.


INQUIRY RESPECTING DATE OF INTRODUCTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, how long must Canadians who want to preserve medicare wait for this long awaited Canada Health Act? The Minister is always waiting for someone else to act. She is waiting for someone else to say something. We are tired of these nice little homilies from the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We want to see some action, because what she does in the next few months between now and October 1 will have everything to do with whether medicare survives or not. Therefore, I ask the Minister, when are we to see the Canada Health Act? I asked the question a month ago, a month before that, and a month before that, and we are still waiting for the answer. When are we to have the Canada Health Act?


Monique Bégin: As soon as it is ready, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member does great damage when he puts everything on my shoulders. All Canadians who believe in medicare, and I have appealed to them, are in the business, with me and with him, if he believes, and he does believe in medicare, to save it. We will save medicare. As a result, we will conserve the best acquisition of 25 years. We will. There is no doubt.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Stop talking and do something.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Over the weekend we learned that right wing guerillas are being supplied with Canadian-made ammunition in their bid to destabilize and overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. The ammunition was intended for NATO troops in Europe. This is not the first time Canadian arms have ended up in the hands of forces with whom the Government prohibits military trade or assistance.
Will the Minister tell the House how this ammunition came to be in the hands of these guerillas? Will he make a statement that this is in contravention of government policy? Will he conduct a serious examination of government safeguards to ensure that Canadian arms do not end up in the hands of people involved in hostilities or the suppression of democratic rights and freedoms?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, Canadian policy and Canadian law with respect to exports of military equipment are well known. No military equipment may be exported without a special export permit issued by the Government. All requests are examined on a case-by-case basis. An export permit is required for each export shipment. After the New York Times printed an article about the possibility that Canadian bullets were being used in Nicaragua, we made enquiries within the Department that issues export permits. No permits for exports of arms or military equipment have been issued for shipments to Nicaragua, and in any case, it would be against the law, which forbids exports of arms to a country where armed conflict exists. We have checked and in the last fifteen years, no export permits have been issued for shipments of this kind of equipment to Nicaragua. We checked the material described in the New York Times. We checked where this material was exported within the last ten years, and we are in touch with governments to whom this military equipment has been exported, to find out whether there has been re-sale or reshipment of the equipment. I have no further information at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. To my knowledge, Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology, which is situated just outside my constituency, is the only school in North America giving a special course on Telidon technology. The problem is that the students graduating from the course have no place to go to work. There are no jobs available for them. We have been trying since March of this year to persuade the Minister to give us some idea or some practical approach to enable work to be found for these young people who are higly skilled in a brand new technology, but one for which there are very few jobs.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right in stating that it is a new technology. It is one which we have transferred to the private sector. Obviously, along with the additional help which the Government has given to the program with an additional
May 30, 1983

infusion of $22 million in funds this year, we expect opportunities to be created by the private sector.
1 simply point out to the Hon. Member that the private sector companies which have taken up the Telidon technology have indeed created many jobs because of the transfer of technology and Telidon to the private sector. I can think in terms of both the information providers, such as Infomart and a number of companies that are manufacturing these sets, from AEL Microtel on the Pacific to Norpak in this area. I can also point out that just last week Infomart itself successfully conluded an arrangement with the Washington Post. It has also just recently concluded an agreement with Mitsui and seems to have an opportunity of penetrating the Japanese market. Therefore I would say that job opportunities would indeed seem to be coming along in that area.


INQUIRY RESPECTING NATURE OF AVAILABLE JOBS
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a brief supplementary question. If all of the information is available, I would really appreciate his putting it in writing because we did ask his office some time ago. However, would the Minister tell me whether the jobs which are being made available are in preparing the technology or in the page preparation and the carrying out of the technology, which is where the training is being done in the school?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to send the Hon. Member additional information on it. I would like him to know that the information 1 have just given to him has indeed been the object of a number of press releases emanating from my office, and which 1 distributed to the offices of all Members of Parliament.


John Raymond Ellis: Nobody reads them.


PIPELINES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the Minister still anticipate that the target date of 1989 is reachable with regard to the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, and can he give assurance that the pipeline will be started in 1984?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I replied to that question on Friday. I think that we have fulfilled our part of the commitment we made. We passed the necessary legislation and we have prebuilt a big section of the pipeline in Canada.
Oral Questions
[DOT] (U30)
Of course the Americans have not been able so far to resolve the problems of marketing their own gas from Alaska, or financing the project. As long as they cannot finalize their part of the project, there is nothing I can do to force them. We have finalized our responsibility in that regard and have moved forward very quickly on our responsibility. It is up to the Americans to develop their sections now.


Arnold John Malone: The Minister knows that he did not answer that question on Friday. It was a different question about the same subject.


COMMISSION'S BUDGET
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, how in the world can the Minister possibly say that the 1989 deadline will be reachable when in fact it will take five years for the conditioning plant on the North Slope to become operative? If we do not start on it until next year that target cannot be met. With that in mind, would the Minister say why Mitchell Sharp and the Northern Pipeline Commission are presently budgeted for more than $5 million when there is no hope of the Government putting the project in place? What useful service are they performing, with many other jobs lacking in the country, and this expensive study going on for about 40 people across the street?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, as to the presidency of the agency, I should like to inform the Hon. Member that he is now working on a part-time basis. As far as the main problem is concerned, I gave my explanation. If I came from Alberta with its large surplus of gas, perhaps I would have an interest in not seeing the pipeline built too fast because, if they take the American gas from Alaska to the American market, there will be less room in the American market for Alberta gas.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, on May 12, 1983, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It read:
Has the Government approved a five-year EDP contract involving Canadian General Electric in Peterborough in the amount of $12.5 million, which is expected to generate 2,000 new jobs? Are the 2,000 jobs spread over the five-year period, or are 2,000 jobs generated each year of the approved contract?
At that time the Parliamentary Secretary answered as follows:
A formal answer will be given to the Leader of the Opposition as early as tomorrow.

May 30, 1983
Oral Questions
That was 17 days to 18 days ago, and I wonder whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could answer that question today.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, 1 saw the Hon. Member's press release as a result of the question which the Leader of the Opposition asked the Parliamentary Secretary. 1 would like to advise the Hon. Member that the information the Hon. Member included in his press release to his riding was not accurate.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The information came from the Minister's own document, circulated on May 11, which clearly read:
New Hydro Electric Generators; $12.5 million EDP for new hydro-generators. Over the five-year lifetime of this contract, the project is expected to generate approximately 2,000 new jobs.


APPROVAL OF CONTRACT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Also it is indicated in his own ministerial document that this project is approved. Is it approved or is it not approved? Why does it also indicate that the sister project in Montreal, Quebec, needs to come onstream in order to make the Peterborough announcement which, according to the Minister's own document, is already approved? Are you stating that this is not your document?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, not being in the practice of pilfering other people's documents, I want to say to the Hon. Member that it is not my document. It happens to be a document which somebody from my Department put forward. When my name is on the document, the Hon. Member will be the last one to know about it.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: In a speech which he made last week to representatives of various national marketing boards, the Minister indicated that he would be considering the disbanding of national marketing boards unless more provincial co-operation or more co-operation within the boards could be found. Obviously that statement has raised some considerable concern among farmers who market agricultural products through these boards. I would like to ask the Minister whether we should take him seriously, or whether he was bluffing.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member can take me whatever way he wants, but I was quite serious.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Minister will know that I would not really mind taking him in any way.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, obviously those statements create some very deep concern in the agricultural community among farmers who have made investments on the basis of the guidelines and conditions by which they market their products. Can I take it from the Minister's answer in the House today that he has no serious intention of changing significantly the manner in which these products are marketed?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, marketing boards are comprised of provincial marketing boards that agree to join in a national program to market products. I, as the Minister responsible to Parliament and to Canada for the operation of these national boards, have some deep concerns about what is going on in some of them. They seem to be on a trend of running their show in the way they see fit. There is squabbling between the different members of the boards from coast to coast. If they really follow what is indicated in the intent of the National Farm Products Marketing Act and have a desire to co-operate, they will not have any problem. They will adhere to the National Farm Products Marketing Board which is the overseeing body that reports to me. If the Hon. Member reads some of the proceedings which were open to the public, he will see what some of the provincial Ministers said. There has to be more of this kind of co-operation and more of this desire to work together, or it will not work. They recognize this themselves.
I have asked them for the last two years to do this kind of thing. I have only one alternative if they do not, that is, to issue an Order in Council giving them 90 days' notice that their boards will fold up. As far as I am concerned, it is up to them to do this. I have begged and pleaded with them to do some of the things-and they are not major things-we want and, I am sure, the Hon. Member wants done in a proper fashion.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It is my understanding that the successful bidder for the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program will be announced shortly, that it is vitally important the best frigate be selected and, in addition, that the best regional distribution of benefits be achieved. It would appear that the best distribution would come out of two, two, and two-the allocation of frigates; two in Atlantic Canada, two in central Canada, and two in western
May 30, 1983

Canada. Would the Minister be prepared to give some kind of commitment to the Elouse that he will see that regional distribution occurs no matter which frigate is selected?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, of course the question of regional distribution is of importance. However, the question of the price which has been allotted for that particular contract is of primary importance. While we will be selecting the best ship in accordance with the objective criteria 1 have already identified for the Hon. Member, we are caught by the size of the economic envelope under which the analysis and the eventual selection will be made.


Raymond John Skelly: That answer is simply not acceptable to the thousands and thousands of shipyard employees in Canada who are unemployed.


DISTRIBUTION OF WORK
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, a two, two, and two distribution would mean that 24 per cent of the benefits would go to Atlantic Canada, 39 per cent to Quebec, 24 per cent to Ontario, and 13 per cent to British Columbia. Cost is one function of the benefits to Canadians. Would the Minister be prepared to give the House some information on whether the figures in terms of the distribution of benefits are accurate, on whether he would be prepared to call the contractors together to look at an improved regional distribution, and on whether he would give his commitment, and the Government's commitment, to supporting this kind of distribution, rather than an all or nothing situation which looks as if might occur now?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, because of the nature of the analysis and because it is a highly competitive process, until such time as a final decision is made I am not in a position to provide the sort of information the Hon. Member is soliciting from me. However, I have heard his representations and his comments. They echo other representations which have been made by other Members of the House. I will take due note of them.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Some weeks ago the Minister of Justice informed us in committee that the Government does not govern by polls; you know, wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Just recently the Solicitor General's Department commissioned a poll to be conducted among the employees of Corrections Canada to see what their attitudes are toward the work place and working conditions. What is the crisis among the employees of Corrections Canada
Oral Questions
which forced the Government to move away from its policy of no polls to see what is going on in the work place?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the Government's policy is not a no-polls policy. I think my colleague stated it correctly, that polls are not the only factor to be given weight in making decisions. There is a large body of employees within Correctional Service Canada, 10,000. I can assure the Hon. Member that their opinions and concerns are very important to me. 1 want the Correctional Service to be informed about them so that any changes that come along in management-labour relations can be weighed in the light of views of employees, along with other factors that have to be taken into consideration, like the views of taxpayers.


ROLE OF MANAGEMENT
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, can the Minister tell us what group of officials here in the Department in Ottawa, or in the regional offices, are so far removed from the work place and the employees that they cannot make an analysis of where the problems lie in the work place?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there are many in the service who can make good analyses of these without the use of surveys, but surveys are a technique for learning about the concerns of a group as large as 10,000. I hope the Hon. Member will have some interest in seeing the survey because, by new Government policy, the results of the survey will be available, along with the questions, when it is completed.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who answers for a host of companies under the social development umbrella. Can the Minister tell us whether Mr. D. Hurley, senior vice-president of Canadair, who represented to the Finance Committee that there were sales for 902 Challenger jets, on a regressive analysis of sales, is still with the corporation? If so, why is he still with the corporation when the Minister knew, Mr. Hurley knew, and everyone on the inside knew that such a sale of jets was totally impossible, particularly in view of a Cabinet document which the Minister and the other Ministers had in their possession early in October, 1982?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as indicated by the Minister responsible for the new corporation which holds Canadair's shares, corporation officials will appear before a Standing Committee of the

May 30, 1983
Oral Questions
House very shortly, and I believe this is the type of question that should be put during a review in committee of the votes of Corporations such as the Canada Development Investment Corporation. It woulld be an excellent opportunity for the Hon. Member to question Corporation officials about the kind of details in which the Hon. Member is interested.


SALARY SCALES OF TOP EMPLOYEES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, will the Minister confirm that at least 100 employees of Canadair earn more than $95,000 a year, and that the top 20 employees of Canadair earn in excess of any emolument ever paid to a Cabinet Minister in Canada, and probably more on average than the Prime Minister?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have a breakdown of the number of employees earning a specific salary. In fact, I fail to see how this could be relevant to the Corporation's activities. Like any other company, Canadair pays its employees according to their skills and responsibility, and I think that if the Hon. Member has some specific concern about the salary levels paid by Canadair, he will have an opportunity to ask questions about the Corporation's salary policy when the Committees meet early in June.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning aircraft parking fees at Vancouver International Airport. I mentioned this to the Minister earlier. Those fees are now over eight times what they were six years ago, and another increase is expected this month. What is the policy of the Government with regard to the parking of small aircraft at Vancouver International? If it is the policy to get rid of them altogether, why does the Government not confess this and prohibit them, rather than trying to starve them out?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the policy is to try to increase the cost recovery. There is no doubt about that. My friend may be surprised to hear that the general return to the Government from general aviation is from 5 per cent to 10 per cent across the board, so something has to be done. Increases in parking either took place before the six and five policy or, if they have taken place since the six and five policy was implemented, they have been within the rules.


GOVERNMENT'S INTENTIONS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, is it the Government's long-range intent to phase out small aircraft altogether at Vancouver International Airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, it is not. As my friend from Vancouver is aware, there is a policy to develop satellite airports around the main ones in order to relieve the congestion. Therefore we have a combination of developing these satellite airports and of raising the level of fees for parking at main airports. We try to balance these in the best possible way.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In 1979 United Technologies was given permission by FIRA to take over Otis Elevator. It made a large number of commitments with regard to the future of the company. Since then it has either phased out or is in the process of phasing out seven different operations within the company. Has FIRA undertaken a review of the commitments made by United Technologies? If so, is it satisfied that it is in fact manufacturing in Canada up to the commitment that it made in 1979?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the specific details the Hon. Member requests. I will check and get back to him. The enforcement branch of FIRA on an ongoing basis checks to ensure that commitments that are made, and undertakings that are given, are adhered to by the companies. Because of the recession over the last couple of years, several companies have not been able to undertake some of the commitments they made. I will check for the Hon. Member and get back to him.


COMPANY MEMORANDUM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in the last year Otis Elevator has given an indefinite lay-off notice to over 300 people, which in effect means they will not be back to work. Does the Minister believe that the following is an appropriate way to deal with Canadians, and I quote from a memo sent out by Otis to its distributors and sales people:
We would further emphasize that at any time when talking to customers regarding deliveries, no mention is made of deliveries from the U.S.A. or reference made to Bloomington. As far as our customers are concerned, we are still ordering the equipment from our Hamilton factory, located in Hamilton, Ontario.
Will the Minister investigate this company and determine whether this is an attempt being made by the company to do
May 30, 1983

an end-run on its commitment to Canada to provide employment opportunities in Canada for Canadians, and to provide in Canada a growth of Otis rather than having it phased out, as it appears to be doing?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon Member, I will investigate his allegations and get back to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, would you permit me to follow up on a question I asked of the Minister of State for Finance last week, having to do with the bilateral agreement we have with the Federal Republic of Germany with respect to the double taxation of pensions and other considerations. The Minister undertook to research his Department to find where this particular agreement is buried. Keeping in mind that the Federal Republic of Germany ratified this agreement a year and a half ago and the Senate has passed a Bill, what is holding up this Bill from getting to the Commons?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to say that I have responded to the Hon. Member in writing. He should have the response.
In dealing with the legislation which governs the agreement, the Senate did make a couple of amendments. They were accepted by the law officers of the Crown, and amendments will have to be processed in the House in order to ratify Finally the agreement referred to by the Hon. Member. That is set out in my response to the Hon. Member. Agreement by Members that those changes could be dealt with by the House would expedite the objective the Hon. Member seeks.


QUERY RESPECTING RETROACTIVITY OF PROVISIONS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, may 1 ask the Minister whether he has consulted with the President of the Treasury Board to see whether he would take the initiatives needed to bring the Bill to the House? I also ask him whether, as was intended by the agreement in 1981, the benefits to literally thousands of Canadians who have earned pension rights in other countries would be retroactive to 1978 and those benefits would be paid in this taxation year.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have sent a copy of the correspondence to the President of the Privy Council who is responsible for setting the agenda for House business. On the second point
Oral Questions
made by the Hon. Member, I cannot give him a definitive answer at this time.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister is undoubtedly aware that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, a Liberal and obstensibly a Government supporter, and Chairman of the Parliamentary Sub-committee on the Northern Canada Power Commission, has accused the Government of ill will, or lack of will, in not responding to the recommendations made in that report. I am now giving the Minister an opportunity to redeem himself and tell us when he will respond to the recommendations made in the NCPC report.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that when we have completely reviewed the task force on energy that involved the Northwest Territorial Government as well as the Yukon Government and, in conjunction with that, when we have reviewed the Penner Report to see what further subsidies can be made over and above the whole mix of subsidies already given to defray energy costs in the North, a program which was announced six weeks ago, as the Hon. Member may note, we will see what we can do with respect to the extension of further subsidies in the North in the future.
While the Hon. Member might be implying that there has been a lack of attention to the North, let me tell him that there has been a whole series of multi-million dollar announcements made by the federal Government right across the Yukon and Northwest Territories with reference to the North and, if he has not noticed these announcements, it is certain that most northerners have, Madam Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, we have noticed all kinds af announcements, like $12 million for the Canadair water bomber that nobody wants. The last time I asked the same question, the reply was that the response would be forthcoming by January of this year. That certainly has not taken place, and I do not know whether we can expect it in the next five months either.


PRICE OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED TO PINE POINT MINES
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the price of electricity to Pine Point Mines, and is directed to the same Minister. In order to get that mine back to work, many organizations, including CN Railway, the union, and the smelter, have given a little bit, but not apparently NCPC. Will the request to reduce the cost of electricity to the actual cost of production

May 30, 1983
Oral Questions
rather than charge the additional 20 per cent surtax be now complied with, or will the mine still be obliged to pay 20 per cent more than the actual cost of the power?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had asked that question in the first place, he would have received an answer. The answer is yes, we have made representations to NCPC with respect to some amelioration with regard to Pine Point, and we hope we will be as helpful to them as indeed we were to Cyprus Anvil, a matter which the Acting Leader of the Opposition may know about.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology. Is the Minister aware that the federal Government's current hiring practices for research scientists are restrictive? In fact, where the federal Government requires universities to advertise, it does not require advertising for research scientists in its own service. I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of this restrictive practice and if he has any thoughts about a mechanism that will change the practice.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the practice to which the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey makes reference, but I will be very happy to look into the matter. I would like to have more details, and perhaps the Hon. Member would be in a position to furnish me with some of the advertising which was actually seen. It would be helpful for me in following it up.


BIOLOGICAL COUNCI L OF CANADA RECOMMENDATIONS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The point that I would like to make to the Minister is that it is indeed the lack of advertising which is the problem. The federal Government is not advertising for research scientist positions. I would like to refer the Minister to the Biological Council of Canada and to the very specific recommendations and concerns expressed by the Biological Council of Canada in its most recent publication. I think in reading that publication the Minister will find that there is indeed a double standard that should be redressed if we are to provide the best opportunity for the federal Government's research facilities, as well as for the scientists of Canada.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I said, I will look into the matter. The hiring of scientists by the Canadian Government is of course
done through the Public Service Commission, so I will look into the matter and determine whether or not the information that the Hon. Member offered is correct.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister has just returned from the United States where he met with the new Chief of the Environmental Protection Agency. Could the Minister tell us whether he discussed with the new Chief the whole problem of chemicals from toxic waste dump sites, entering the Niagara River?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did meet with Mr. Ruckelshaus, the new Chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, on Friday morning. The purpose of that meeting was to establish personal contact and to discuss in a very general way environmental problems shared by both our countries. Most of the time that was spent in discussion was devoted to the acid rain issue, and the question of toxic chemical entry into the Niagara River system and possible measures which our two countries could take to respond to those problems. There was no specific conclusion reached in our discussions, and no specific timetable was established. The discussions were more of a general attempt to resolve the problems. The subject matter of the Hon. Member's question was very much at the forefront of our discussions on Friday.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the Minister advise the House when he intends to table the amendments with reference to the Crow rate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Tomorrow, Madam Speaker. I understand, however, that it will not be a tabling. The amendments will be given to the House Leaders of each Party.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and follows up on the question put to
May 30, 1983

him by the Hon. Member for Peterborough having to do with the mystery of the purloined document, which was found resting snugly in the interior of a plain brown envelope. No doubt the Minister has already seen question No. 4,918 on the Order Paper, which was placed there on May 16, listing-


An Hon. Member:: What page?


Erik Nielsen: Page 193 of this year. That question was placed there by myself and lists some 200 projects by name, with the amount of federal money going into each project in various parts of the country. Since it would only take about ten minutes for a single member of the Minister's staff to verify that that list of projects and those amounts came from the purloined document, I wonder if the Minister would have that done and cause that question to be answered tomorrow or, at the very latest, the following day, since it is a very simple matter to check that information.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, my Department identifys projects which the federal Government may possibly be involved in on a regular basis, but my experience in the private sector, and in both municipal and federal Government, has been that the more discreet one is with respect to investments of this nature, the more likely one is to be successful. Usually pre-announcements of this kind jeopardize many of the projects that could take place in the private sector.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS
Erik Nielsen: Since the projects have obviously been authorized by virtue of the specificity with which the amounts are set forth beside the various names, and since it seems that I was right on, two weeks ago, when 1 announced Canadian participation in the A-320 which was announced at the Paris Air Show and confirmed by President Reagan, does the Minister not feel that we in the House are entitled to information from our Ministers before we hear the same information from the President of the United States, or through the Paris Air Show?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I just said. Those documents are identified and revised on a regular basis with respect to possible federal Government participation. As well as the document that the Hon. Member has, we have other papers that I will be happy to send him about industrial prospects.
I do not think the Hon. Member serves the purpose of any colleague on either side of the House by pronouncing on something when no final decision has been taken.
Committee Reports
[ Translation]


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
Pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this Report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order. Last Thursday the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rose to indicate that a statement I had made on May 26 may have been inadvertently incorrect. I checked the record on my return from the West Coast and I find that what he said is true.
If I am permitted, I should like to correct the statement I made on May 25, as reported at page 25693, where I indicated in reference to the labour dispute on the West Coast that a strike vote had been taken but that full authority had not been given by the membership. That should be the other way around: authority had been given but the strike vote had not been taken.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the nineteenth and twentieth reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to both of which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests comprehensive responses.
25842

May 30, 1983
Order Paper Questions COMMUNICATIONS


REFERENCE OF POLICY PAPER ON BROADCASTING TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, after consulting with representatives of the Opposition and finding unanimous agreement, I am pleased to move in the name of the Government that the policy paper Towards a New National Broadcasting Policy, which was tabled in the Elouse on March 1 of this year, be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,825, 4,826 and 4,827.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	What level of funding is provided to the Canadian Hunger Foundation from the Canadian International Development Agency?
2.	Is the Foundation a non-government organization?
3.	Is the Foundation audited regularly?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The level of funding provided by CIDA to the Canadian Hunger Foundation (CHF) for 1982-83 was $1,153,562.
2.	Yes, the CHF is a non-governmental organization.
3.	Yes, the CHF is audited annually and audited financial statements are submitted to CIDA.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	Does there exist a written definition of a non-government organization?
2.	At what level of funding from the Government does a non-government organization cease to become such?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes, for the purposes of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), there is a written definition of non-governmental organizations, viz., organizations, agencies or institutions which are non-governmental, non-profit and identifiable as Canadian.
2. There is no prescribed level of funding from the Government that will cause a non-governmental organization no longer to be deemed as such.


Mr. Fretz: Does a regular audit become mandatory after receiving a certain level of funding from the Government and, if so, what is that level?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At present, there is no mandatory audit requirement based upon a particular level of funding by CIDA.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Oberle:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forests and its indifference to the threat posed to Canada's forests and forest industries by pests, fire, pollution and foreign competition, and calls upon the Government to stimulate the research needed to promote superior growth and diversify export products, and acknowledge its responsibility to protect the Canadian environment and the millions of Canadians whose livelihood depends upon Canada's forest resources.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we owe a debt to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) for having provided this opportunity to raise a matter of prime importance to Canada. I should like to put the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) at his ease a little bit because he was worried about the language used in the motion. As far as I am concerned the wording stands. It begins as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forests and its indifference to the threat posed-
I should like to inform the Minister here and now that as far as I am concerned the purpose of the debate is to strengthen his hand with his Cabinet colleagues so that we will no longer have to condemn the Government for its neglect of our forest lands.
From time immemorial our forests have been relentlessly attacked by fire caused by lightning and by pests. Happily the destructive efforts of these two plagues are intermittent and forests have somehow or other managed to survive. Now a
May 30, 1983

third attack on the forests has been launched and is being sustained. The forests are beginning to show excessive wear and tear. Many a qualified forester indeed will tell you that our forests are being used up under this new threat.
Whence does this threat come? From man, with his insatiable hunger for wood products either to protect him from the elements, the wind and the cold, or when that does not work, products on which he can blow his nose when he has a cold or to record his thoughts-some good thoughts and some not so good. Modern man could be the forest's greatest foe; if man wants the forest to help him he will have to co-operate with the forest and not be content with destroying it.
Yet modern man has within him the power, if properly awakened and awakened soon enough, to repair the damage he has done and preserve that valuable heritage for generations to come. A warning was given to us in Canada over a century ago; we have yet to show that we have heeded that caution. John A. Macdonald said in 1871 and I quote:
We are recklessly destroying the timber of Canada. There is scarcely a possibility of replacing it. It occurs to me that the subject should be looked in the face and some efforts made for the preservation of our timber.
What prompted this comment, it would seem, was the sight of the destruction of the white pine in Ontario. Records indicate that in the winter of 1866 and 1867, 400 men felled nearly 30,000 huge white pines. In less than a century the white pine forests that once covered large parts of eastern Canada has been reduced almost to a memory. There remain only a few lonely giants which were skipped by the cutting crews.
Speaking of lonely giants, and I hope they are not too lonely, I should like to tell the House that in British Columbia MacMillan Bloedel provided a sanctuary by preserving a small park where there is a majestic stand of Douglas fir and cedar which is called Cathedral Grove. It straddles the road crossing Vancouver Island west of Parksville on the way to the Pacific Rim Park. It has to be seen to be believed. There, in Cathedral Grove-how aptly named!-one strains backward and upward to see them rise, 250 to 300 feet tall, 30 and 40 feet in girth. Those trees were standing tall-20 feet or so-when King John-John Lackland-in 1215 was forced on to Runnymede Island to sign the Magna Carta, 700 years ago. That is what the forest can do.
Our resolve to preserve our forests may need stimulation. Let us consider this debate as a stimulant; let it be a catalyst; let it be anything you like provided it provokes positive reaction and promotes sustained activity in favour of forest regeneration. I repeat to the Minister, we are here to strengthen his hand with Cabinet.
Let us remember above all else that we have it in our hands-and we are at a crossroads as many a forester will tell you-to do one of two things. We can ensure that our consumption of the forests will not devastate the forests, or we can say to the generations which come after us: "Tough; we used your forests, but it never occurred to us to put them back, to regenerate them for your use".
Supply
Are we prepared to act today to earn the gratitude of our grandchildren or will they curse us for our wanton wastefulness? The motto of my first alma mater, Mr. Speaker, was "Tuum est", "It's up to you". I believe our motto should be "Nostrum est", "It's up to us". It is up to us. We can go either way. We can preserve and deserve thanks, or we can destroy and merit obloquy.
How important is conservation? Aside altogether from the value of the timber cut, there is the value of the timber standing. Trees-and mark this, Mr. Speaker-or their absence, produce our climate. Rain forests or deserts? These are the outside options. Within those outer brackets, Mr. Speaker, we have the option of renewing forests and grasslands or facing a future of desert. Which do we want?
This debate today, for me at least, is an exercise aimed at reaching out for and activating the springs of action of the public, in both levels of Government and in industry. It is an exhortation to action. For that reason, I personally am extremely grateful to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). That is the best we can do on this side of the House. However, I would like to remind all listening that even during those brief nine or ten months in office the Progressive Conservative Government took major steps to restore the federal forestry service to its rightful place by appointing a knowledgeable and enthusiastic forester as the Assistant Deputy Minister of Forestry, a man who knows how to get his message across to Ministers and to the public. We are grateful to him and I am happy to acknowledge his presence under our roof today.
Much more needs to be done, much, much more. Somehow or other we have to provoke, inspire, encourage, lobby, incite, instigate, and perhaps even coax a little or wheedle. The Greeks had a word for it which we borrowed, "ecphorize", meaning to remove obstacles. That is what we must do, Mr. Speaker; we must remove obstacles, whether they be caused by ignorance, lethargy or red tape.
How do we do that? I think perhaps the shock treatment might help and I would like to deliver a few shocks. I believe they are shocks. They were shocks to me when I first became aware of them. For example, let us consider the revenue which this country receives from all quarters and the revenue it receives from forestry, its expenditures across the country and its expenditures on forestry. It is really quite interesting when you realize that the revenue from the forests, grosso modo, is about 1 per cent of the revenue expected by this Government this year, and its expenditures on forestry are about .1 per cent. That is a shameful comparison; I hope it shocks you, Mr. Speaker. One per cent in terms of revenue to the federal Government and 0.1 per cent in expenditures on forestry.
The Food and Agriculture Organization reported recently that the forest land base of the world is disappearing at the rate of 50 acres a minute. This is around the world; it is not just a Canadian problem, Mr. Speaker, I admit that. However, we do not have to lag behind. It is the livelihood of a good many Canadians. It is the basis of our foreign trade. The forest

May 30, 1983
Supply
land of the world is disappearing at the rate of 50 acres a minute. If you worked that out in other terms, it is about 72,000 acres a day, about 112 square miles a day, of 41,000 square miles a year, almost the size of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined. That amount of forest land is disappearing from the face of the earth every year.
Something else which I believe is a real shocker is that to produce one day's issue of the Toronto Sun requires seven acres of bush to be chopped down, 2,400 acres per year. That is four square miles per year for one paper. And that is just one paper in one metropolican city in Canada. What about the New York Times'? How many acres or square miles are required even for the Sunday edition of the New York Times?
One thing we seem to forget, Mr. Speaker, and that is that trees take a long time to grow, but if permitted they will grow and stand tall. Once they are chopped down, however, or burned out, or eaten by pests, they take years to replace. The present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts)-I am happy to see he is still in the House-was quoted in something 1 read recently as saying: "There will be a disaster in our forest heritage if we let nature take its course". He was speaking of forest fires and infestations. 1 say that there will be an even greater disaster if we let man have his way without inducing him one way or another to replant whatever he fells.
Let us look at what we stand to lose if we lose our forest industry. The total production value from our forests is about $13 billion, of which approximately $9 billion is for export. Total public revenues from forests to both levels of Government, federal and provincial, are about $2 billion. Forest products account for about 18 per cent, nearly one-fifth of Canada's total exports. Forest products are far and away the most important of Canada's exports. It has already been mentioned but it is worth underlining, Mr. Speaker, that forestry makes a larger, positive contribution to our trade balance than agriculture, fisheries, mining and petroleum products combined. Forestry produces more than those four industries. Forestry directly or indirectly employs one out of every ten Canadians in the work force. That is a very important consideration.
What are we doing partially that we ought to be doing more thoroughly? At what sort of rate are we reforesting or restoring to the ground that which we are taking from it? Sweden, about the size of Alberta, plants 400 million seedlings a year. That country is just about one-tenth the size of Canada south of the 60th parallel. Who plants these seedlings? It is the industry which plants them. Canada plants from coast to coast about 350 million seedlings. We ought to be planting three times as many trees, Mr. Speaker. Even then we would still not be up to the rate at which Sweden plants trees. We plant only one acre for every four acres harvested, and nature provides another acre. So we have two unplanted and infertile. That is a disgraceful record and we need to and could do more, not for ourselves but for those who follow us.
a (1520)
Let us look at some of the more disconcerting facts. The federal Government receives about $1 billion annually from
forest enterprises and the federal forestry budget amounts to about $66 million, or roughly 6.5 per cent of the revenue that forestry generates. The other figures I have already mentioned. Provincial Governments derive about the same amount but they do not do all that much better. Over all, no more than 20 per cent of the revenue from the forest is restored to the forest. Only $400 million across this whole country for an industry which produces $12 billion to $13 billion in products and $9 billion in export earnings.
This is an age of buzzwords, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, and the buzzwords I would like to get out and about on everyone's tongue are "forest management", and "sustainable yield". Those are the important objectives which have to be formulated and pursued consistently year after year after year. A 20, 30 or 40 year program has to be laid down. We have to farm our forests properly, and I use the word "farm" advisedly. We have to plant seeds as a farmer plants seeds if we want a crop down the road. I have heard, for example, that there have been notions of putting seeds in little pellets and spreading them out from an aircraft flying over cut land. Not all will germinate, but many of them will and take root.
We also have to thin the forests to make sure that the hardiest trees survive and produce the best crop. We have to plant today at a rate which will give us the crop we are going to need 20 or 30 years hence. We have to cull and thin and in places even fertilize. I understand the Swedes fertilize their trees, which is an interesting concept and it can be done. It will take a lot of tender loving care as well as scientific knowledge.
In the care of our forests today, we are behaving not much better than our forefathers who managed to demolish the white pine so effectively in such a short time, as Sir John A. reminded us over 100 years ago.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the presentation of the Hon. Member. He pointed out many important issues. However, there is one glaring omission and I wonder if he might take a moment to comment. It might have simply been an inadvertent oversight.
In Canada, especially in the particular areas represented by the Hon. Member and myself, there are thousands and thousands of native people. The economy of most of their communities is based on Unemployment Insurance and welfare. They do not have access to the forest industry. Does the Hon. Member care to make a statement as to why native people were omitted from the resolution and why there has been no assistance from the federal Government so that the native people can gain access to the forest resource and its development? The native land claims are the key by which they could be given access to this resource and thereby strengthen the economy of the native communities. The land claim is one of the few mechanisms by which native people can have access to forest resources in a fair and equitable way.
The Hon. Member mentioned that the biggest engine of the Canadian economy was the forest industry, so why has his Party neglected to place in its resolution before the House of
May 30, 1983

Commons a statement on the access by native people to that forest resource?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) for drawing to my attention that omission. Twenty minutes was all I was permitted. I had hoped that I would be able to include something along those lines because it has to be remembered that the federal Government, which has a tendency to say it is all the Provinces' fault, that they should do more for forestry because they own the resource, itself tends to forget there is an area of Canada south of 60 and about the size of Nova Scotia which is federal Crown land. Much of that land is taken up by reserves where the Indians would be happy to develop a forest industry to supply existing mills or to build mills of their own. They could earn their living in that way. That was mentioned in many of the things I read to prepare myself for this debate today, but the 20-minute rule prevented me from developing it any further. I do hope the Hon. Member will do so.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I am very pleased at the very constructive position taken both by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). I agree with all of the comments that the latter Member has made, except for his assumption that the Government was not sympathetic to the representations being made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) who is responsible for the Canadian Forestry Service.


Donald W. Munro: Not sufficiently sympathetic.


Mr. Blais:: In fact, there has been a great deal of support given to the Minister concerning the forestry policies he has advanced. Indeed, I am sure the hon. gentleman will recognize there has been more activity in the forest sector in the last three years than at any time before by the federal Government. The Government has assumed a leadership role at the national level which in my view, it ought to have assumed some time before. But in view of that assumption by the Minister of the Environment, I think we ought to commend him for having taken that initiative.
I can well recognize why the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River would be in love with the forest. I had occasion last summer to take my family into the interior of British Columbia and I insisted on travelling two days on lumber roads up and down the mountainside to observe the size of the forest.


Donald W. Munro: How is your car?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The car is fine. It was a rented car. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that forest is as bountiful, attractive and beautiful as anyone would want. I ahve a particular love for the forest because I come from northern Ontario. It just so happens that this year is the one hundredth anniversary of my great grandfather's arrival in northern Ontario where he
Supply
worked for E.B. Eddy at the time they were cutting ties for the CPR which was then starting its long journey across the country to the region represented by my hon. friend. I can tell him that since that time my family, which has now become bountiful and plentiful also, occupies a large number of areas in northern Ontario and a large number of my family are involved in the forest products industry. So I felt very emotional having observed that which the hon. gentleman speaks of.
As well I was very sensitive to his comments relating to the white pine, the prince of pines, and its demise from northern Ontario forests. That is a calamity and a tragedy which we will hopefully be able to reverse.


Donald W. Munro: It must not happen again.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Not only must it not happen again, there must be a greater aggressivity on the part of the Ontario Government, a Province where these trees are found, to develop nurseries and grow seeds that will permit the replenishment of the forests in northern Ontario, not only with jack pine, red pine and spruce but also with white pine. It takes over 100 years for that tree to grow to full maturity. It requires a longsighted Government to recognize that, notwithstanding the fact it may take 125 years for the tree to grow to full maturity in northern Ontario, there is a responsibility to future generations of Canadians to plant and nurture now.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that we must begin to farm that resource now, which is an essential ingredient in my view.
It has been the history of humankind to exploit forests and to denude the land of forests. That was the phenomenon in the Middle East. We can base ourselves on the Holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, where we see that there were forests there. They were not plentiful but they did exist. The fact is that in North Africa those forests are now gone, an area which I had the pleasure of visiting. In biblical times the atlas cedar grew there in bountiful quantities. It has now disappeared. It has disappeared to the point where it has become nearly a sacred material in the Moslem religion and is being incorporated in all their rites. The reason is that wood is as close to humanity as any material can be. It was the first hard material capable of being utilized by our ancestors. The fact is that it is being utilized now to an even greater extent than it was in those days.
Coming from northern Ontario I am even more sensitive to its importance. In terms of economic impact, the forest industry in northern Ontario is responsible for 55 per cent of all manufacturing jobs. That represents 31,000 jobs. It is responsible for 58 per cent of manufacturing wages and salaries, or some $560 million on an annual basis. It is reponsible for 57 per cent of the value of production, namely $2.2 billion. It is responsible for 54 per cent of value added to products in northern Ontario.
It is evident from each of the statistics that I have quoted that more than half the economic activity in northern Ontario

May 30. 1983
Supply
is attributable to the forest products industry. But the state of Ontario's forests is not very good. I can speak of my own riding where I said, in a speech I made on the forest products industry seven years ago, that we had but 15 years left of marketable timber in the region. Very little has been done since then. In the Province of Ontario, 3.8 million hectares are depleted at this stage. The total number of acres needing reforestation would translate into 37,650 square kilometres. That is 37,650 square kilometres of backlog in northern Ontario which needs to be reseeded and put back into production.
Ontario's annual cut is 160,000 hectares, but its reforestation is in only half that area, that is, 80,000 hectares. Even with the huge backlog of over 37,000 square kilometres of forests which need to be replenished, it is falling behind 50 per cent annually. In Ontario twice as much is being cut as is being planted, and that is completely unacceptable.
In fact, the Province of Ontario has long been very weak in forest management. This is understandable when all the decisions relating to the forest products industry are being made in hogtown. I have nothing against Toronto, the Queen City, but the fact is that it is far removed from those areas where lumber is being exploited.
As I indicated, my family has been in northern Ontario for 100 years. We have attempted on a number of occasions to improve and encourage the improvement of forest management, but to no avail. The operators in northern Ontario are very much aware of the need for reseeding. Unfortunately, the private operators must meet the market and its requirements. Their profit margins are very slight and one cannot expect an operator, who tends to operate in terms of the benefits which will flow into his own treasury at the end of any given fiscal year of operation, to look 125 years down the line. We cannot expect him to finance the operation 125 years into the future or even 50 years down the line. It is only a public authority which really ought to have that kind of foresight. In the past the Ontario Government has shown a desire for the private sector to fund forest management and renewal. Of course, that did not happen.
The private sector is interested in immediate exploitation and is not looking forward to forest conservation in the long term. That is where the failure is. Finally, after stimulation by the federal Government, the Province of Ontario has agreed to enter into forest management agreements with the producers in the Province of Ontario. It has signed agreements with 13 producers in order to provide them with funding that would match or take into account the contribution from the private sector in order to enter into forest management agreements. While that is not representative of all the suppliers. It is better than nothing.
In effect, that agreement which was signed by the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada provided for $82 million in investments over five years. That agreement will terminate in March, 1984, and the renegotiation of a new agreement is being undertaken. That new agreement will envision intensive efforts to reforest private and industrial lands as well as provide for the regeneration of the backlog of
unsatisfactorily restocked Crown land. It will also provide for the expansion of nursery capacity since that capacity is insufficient. It is nearly one-third of what should be available. Furthermore, it proposes increased research and development in Ontario to meet that Province's specific requirements. It also takes into account Indian reserves forest management. The hon. gentleman from the New Democratic Party spoke about Indian lands and the fact that forests are the only resource available for exploitation by Indian people in a large number of those areas. Exactly the same situation exists in my area. One band has close to 50,000 acres of available forests for exploitation but has never before been encouraged to exploit that resource. I have obtained funds for them so they may exploit those resources in the future.
In addition, we will have technology transfers and increased public awareness, which is essential. This brings me to the subject of forest fires and the threat of forest fires which, in 1980, were responsible for the destruction of an equivalent of a six kilometre wide strip of forest from coast to coast in Canada and a $350 million loss in terms of income. As a result of that particular loss in 1980, I have been aggressively seeking to obtain the sort of firefighting equipment which is required for the firefighting patrol Canada.
That is why I went after the CL-2I5, a water bomber manufactured by Canadair. It is the most effective instrument we have, and it makes it easier to put out a fire when it first starts, as a result of lightning or electric storms in areas that are not accessible by road. The only way to get there is by air, and in that kind of situation, the best kind of aircraft is a plane, and the CL-215 was designed especially for fighting forest fires. This plane, which is entirely Canadian-designed, can carry more than seven tons of water per trip and make ten trips per hour.

That means seven tonnes per trip, ten trips per hour, 70 tonnes of water which can be dumped on to a fire anywhere water can be scooped. All that is required for the scooping is 1,200 metres, which is just a bit more than one kilometre. It can come in, scoop the water and take off with seven tonnes of water.
We have been able to export the aircraft. We have 15 of those aircraft flying in France, 17 flying in Spain, 12 flying in Greece, four in Yugoslavia, two in Venezuela, two in Thailand and two in Italy. In effect, with the orders that we are placing jointly with the Provinces, we will be in a position to encourage greater aggressivity by Canadair in the international marketplace. It is an aicraft which is required. It is an aircraft which not only provides us with protection against fires in the forest, but also one which provides a large number of jobs in a very sensitive area of Canadian industrial activity, namely, the aerospace industry.
May 30, 1983

It is recognized that Canada's future depends on the forest products industry. It is an industry which we have neglected in the past. It is an industry which will secure for us not only domestic markets, but also export markets for long periods of time, if we are wise enough to farm the resource, if we are wise enough to put back as much into forest management as we take out of it. It is something which we have not done in the past. We have been able to survive because Canada was so plentiful.
My region, Sturgeon Falls, was initially developed in the 1860s as a result of J. R. Booth going up the Ottawa River, the Mattawa River and then finding all the best white pines, topping the white pines, taking the best 16 feet and leaving the balance in the bush. Even today, one goes into the bush of northern Ontario and one trips over "des souches".


An Hon. Member:: He must have been an headless Liberal.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, as a matter of fact, he was not. He was a good supporter of the Tory Party.


An Hon. Member:: A good one?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us the difference.


Jean-Jacques Blais: If the NDP had existed at that time and had had as many reactionary points of view as it has expressed as a result of the Crow debate, he probably would have voted NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Are you still eating Crow over there?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, we will be dealing with the Crow for some time to come because we are a progressive Party on that matter. We do not have to deal with reactionaries such as those who have abided with the NDP. Especially with all those young faces opposite, it is just unbelievable to hear such reactionary old-time views. I note that Members of the NDP are present in large number. One of its Members must be speaking next. I hope that they will be as constructive in their approach as were the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).
In concluding, I want to transmit some praise to my colleague and seatmate, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), because he has dealt with all the areas which have been identified in the motion. If one considers the motion, one finds that it condemns the Government for neglect but identifies the areas, all of which have been addressed by the Minister. Indeed, the pest problem has been well addressed by the Canadian Forestry Service. There is still work to be done. I have already discussed fire control and the amount of moneys we are investing in the water bomber. In terms of pollution, again there is work concerning acid rain. In terms of foreign competition as well, I have discussed our ability to penetrate the American market and to resist the protectionist measures which the Americans threatened to take.
Supply
I would like to make one last point. Last January, all the caucus Members from northern Ontario met in Thunder Bay and we dealt with forest products and the forest industry. We invited all Hon. Members from northern Ontario, including one Hon. Member from the Loyal Opposition. There were six Cabinet Ministers, all of whom had an interest, direct or indirect, in the forest products industry. We invited members of the private sector who were involved in pulp and paper, in sawmill operations, in planing and drying operations, in order to discuss the industry and the measures which should be taken by the Government in order to advance the industry's cause. The results of that particular conference are now being implemented in large measure. One of them has been implemented because there was a recommendation by the industry relating to water bombers, and that has gone forward. However, the others are now being worked upon and are being implemented by the Canadian Forestry Service.
I think that the Government has done a great deal. There is still a great deal to be done, but what it has done, primarily, has been to assume the leadership role in the protection and in the exploitation of our forests, which really devolves upon the Government of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, listening to the Hon. Member and his constructive remarks in response to the motion which is filed under my name, one cannot help but be reminded of the old saying that if he could only harness the energy expended in talking of the crisis, it would very soon be ended. There is no question but that the Liberals have done much talking and, hopefully, sooner or later, their talking will be followed up with some action.
The Minister made reference to a very important subject, one very dear to my heart, that is, the development of private woodlots and the necessity for developing government programs and regimes which would encourage and entice private owners of marginal farmland which should be forested or private owners of woodlands to begin planting and restocking. As he said, it would take 25 years to 100 years, so there is really no great incentive for anyone, in one life time, to undertake such a project. He heaped scorn on the Province for not being more innovative in encouraging people. Could he tell me what initiatives are being taken by the federal Government? The Tax Act really comes under federal Government jurisdiction. What initiative is the federal Government taking to develop a tax regime which would encourage and entice private woodlot owners, industries and Provinces to follow suit and match the efforts of the federal Government in that kind of endeavour?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the development of woodlots, of course, would have to come within the agreements which are executed and would have to be envisaged within the agreements which are being negotiated as between the federal Government and the provincial Government.

May 30, 1983
Supply
I am not one to start encouraging the federal Government to engage in a confrontational stance vis-a-vis the Provinces in an area as important as the forest products industry. I would fear that if the Government of Canada would unilaterally start offering incentives to private entrepreneurs in terms of the development of private woodlots, especially where Provinces have huge areas of forestry which come under provincial Crown jurisdiction, we would get into that sort of confrontational stance. Elowever, I recognize that in certain areas that may be the only way to go. I know that in the Province of Quebec the question of the development of private woodlots and the incentives being advanced by the federal Government in terms of the development of private woodlots is one of the options at which the Government is looking.
In my area the Province controls most of the Crown lands, except for Indian lands in certain areas. Therefore, it tends to be able to adopt its own policies in order to favour the Crown lands within the Province, and private woodlot operators tend to benefit as a result of the spin-offs of provincial policy. Having said that, the best way to address the individual situations in individual Provinces is to negotiate terms affecting private woodlots within federal-provincial agreements.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the previous speaker reminds me of the old saying that talk is cheap but it takes money to make things move. I wonder where his priority was in the 20 minutes he took. Would the Minister be prepared to indicate what kind of support he would give to native people across Canada for access into the forest industry? I would just like to mention two or three things. One would be access to the resource. There is a desperate need to resolve the land claim issue and to give them access. Does he support that? The second is the creation of a native forest development corporation for the funding and for the development of silviculture inventory, reseeding and production. The third would be the establishment of an Indian forest economic development fund, a special fund so that native people can become involved in it. The fourth would be an affirmative action program where in companies are financially assisted by the federal Government, whether they be Crown Zellerbach or MacMillan Bloedel. Would the Government be prepared to undertake an affirmative action program so that young Indian people will have employment opportunities in forestry operations? The fifth would be the development of specific training programs for young people so that they can become directly involved in that industry. The sixth would be some form of co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to develop an effective forestry program for native people. Would the Minister raise these with his caucus colleagues and press for them as a member of the Cabinet of this Government?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) who went on at
some length in his speech describing the excellent deal in terms of fire-fighting aircraft on which the federal Government has taken initiative. I want to say that I agree with him in part, that in fact it was an important breakthrough and will assist many Provinces. However, the Province with the major component in the Canadian forest industry is the Province of British Columbia and its neighbouring territory, Yukon. The aircraft which the federal Government is now pushing takes considerable time to land, to pick up water and to take off once again. When the Government made the decision, did it overlook the fact that British Columbia does not have wide valleys and easy access to water sources? More specifically, did the Government consider that a good deal of northern British Columbia and Yukon are fighting forest fires when all the lakes are frozen over, particularly at this time of the year and still for many, many weeks? How could the Government see using this aircraft to scoop up water to fight forest fires when the lakes are frozen over?


Jean-Jacques Blais: First, the Hon. Member says that it takes a long time for the aircraft to land in order to load on water. The fact is that the aircraft does not land. It takes six seconds to scoop up water. It needs only a bit more than a kilometre to go from 50 feet above land or water, to dip down and load something over seven tonnes of water, and then to take off again.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did you say 50 feet?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, just slightly over one kilometre or 1,200 metres is what is required for the aircraft to dive from 50 feet above ground level-


Nelson Andrew Riis: In British Columbia they wou have to be higher than 50 feet.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The fact is that the aircraft can do it. I have asked that specific question of my officials who told me that in British Columbia the aircraft would be very useful, even more useful than the fire retardant bombers that are now being employed there.
However, the situation in British Columbia is that there are a number of companies using older type aircraft such as the DC-6 and some smaller type of aircraft which are using fire retardants. I think there may be some pressure by those contractors vis-a-vis the British Columbia Government relating to their getting involved with water bombers.
In terms of the Yukon Territory, I can tell the Hon. Member that indeed in my area of the country where lakes are frozen over for some period of time, when there is ice on the lakes, there is snow in the bush and when there is snow in the bush, there is very little chance of fire starting. In fact, that is the case in Yukon as well. The survey at which we looked indicated that while there are some forest fires in the early portions of the season, the high incident of forest fires is after the lakes are opened and there can be the scooping of water and dumping of water on to fires.
In addition, we have looked at lakes and the availability of lakes close to where valuable forest lands are to be found. We
May 30, 1983

have ascertained that the lakes are sufficiently close to make the water bomber a viable firefighting mechanism.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of Hon. Members who have participated so far, particularly to those of the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). My family, like his, has had a bit of a feel for the forests. We were chased out of Scotland a bit earlier than his family arrived in this country because the English at that time preferred sheep, and we landed in Nova Scotia. Ever since that time my family has been interested in forestry. My own grandfather began to plant trees over 60 years ago. My father has continued this tradition, and so have I. It makes me laugh when I hear the Minister say that it is only the public sector which has a commitment to undertake long-term forestry projects. It has to be a partnership between the public and the private sector. When I think of the shortsighted policies that have existed in the public sector with respect to forestry and compare them with some of the things that industrialists like K. C. Irving have done to entertain large scale forestry, I realize just how out of touch the Minister is.
At one time Canada had a federal forestry department. Its first Minister was a distinguished former Premier of New Brunswick, Hugh John Flemming. He was also an outstanding Member of the House for many years. However, at this point in time the forestry department has been merged or submerged into the greater Department of the Environment. This is not acceptable because the size of the contribution of this Department would dictate that it certainly deserves equal status to agriculture and to fisheries. It is pretty obvious that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-to whom I want to pay tribute for doing something which our administration suggested should be done and which we had begun to do, that is, to move the PFRA back into that Department where it should have been and extend services across the country- would be the first to agree that forestry deserves equal status to agriculture. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) would agree as well. It is unfortunate that this step cannot be taken.
As other Hon. Members have said-and I think it should be put on the record once more-the forestry sector deserves at least equal treatment because directly or indirectly it provides one out of every ten jobs in the country. It provides jobs for 13 per cent of all people employed in manufacturing and generates over $1 billion in tax revenue for the Provinces. Forest products exports, as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) said, amount to many billions of dollars and account for about 18 per cent of all Canadian exports. It makes a larger positive net contribution to trade, as he said, than agriculture, mining, fisheries and the petroleum industry combined, yet the forest industry has been downgraded over the years simply because it has not been making the demands or has not received the attention that it should have.
Supply
People tend to view forests in extremes. Some, like the American poet Joyce Kilmer who was killed during World War I, were very eloquent on the subject. Who can forget his testimony that "Poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree".
On the other hand there are those pragmatic individuals who run large pulp companies or who take part in some other sectors of the industry who look upon forests as only the raw material for cellulose or as a source for so many cunits of lumber. I believe that this important industry has to be viewed with enlightened concern, a blending if you will of the aesthetic and the practical so that this great renewable resource is administered and developed, if not with idealism, at least with sensitivity for all that it can do and what it represents and has represented for this country.
The federal Government has been slowly responding to problems in the forestry sector caused by past neglect. Evidence of this growing federal concern has been indicated as speakers on the Government side have emphasized, by the initiation of a shared-cost program for modernization of the forest products industry. Major increases in federal input to forest management through DREE sub-agreements with the Provinces has been another initiative which has been helpful. There was the decision to raise the Canadian Forestry Service to a separate service headed by an Assistant Deputy Minister and the establishment of the federal forestry sector strategy committee to co-ordinate and assess federal initiatives and actions relation to the forestry sector. More effort is needed. Certainly there has to be a greater effort made by the provincial as well as the federal Governments if we are going to continue to stop the neglect and the discrimination of this great industry.
Some people may say we do not need a federal forest Minister because so much of the jurisdiction lies with the Provinces. That is not so. Even excluding the vast Territories, Yukon and N.W.T. in this country, there are still areas of land under the control of the federal Government in Provinces that are greater in total area than the Province of Nova Scotia.
It seems obvious that to deny a resource of this magnitude a separate Ministry is a situation that should not be allowed to continue. The different regions of Canada have their own traditions. It is fascinating how the history of forestry blends in with the history of this country. Each region has its own methodology, from the rain forests of British Columbia to the Acadian forests in eastern Canada. There have been different historical developments and different ways of life which have developed.
In our school it was interesting to learn how the lumberjacks in New Brunswick and Maine almost caused a war between our two countries, called "The Pork and Beans War", when they began to take umbrage at certain things that went on in the forests in their Province and State respectively.
Our national capital was once a lumber town. That was the very reason for its existence at the time that Queen Victoria

May 30, 1983
Supply
decided it had the potential to be the capital of Canada. Some cynics would agree that it made a greater contribution as a timber centre than it has ever made as a political centre. That probably is a topic for another speech.
As a Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I am proud to say there was no Province in the country that had a more unique approach to the ownership of land and the utilization of forests. It has been a remarkably cosmopolitan Province in terms of the evolution of this country's history. To deviate from the strict topic of forestry for a moment, let me say that upon its stage many dramas involving Britain, France and the United States were once played. It was a gateway for French exploration. It was a British military staging ground and became, as the great author Thomas H. Riddell stated when talking about the Port of Halifax, "The warden of the north" which stood guard over the vast interior of this country for many years. Our Province was front and centre during the fraternal struggle between Great Britain and the United States.
From the War of Independence to the United States' Civil War, Irish, Scots, Germans and United Empire loyalists, people from Quebec or France, all for their own good reasons, settled in Nova Scotia, and a unique land system evolved. The ownership of land always meant a great deal to the people of Nova Scotia, and no other Province in the country, to my knowledge, had such a high percentage of private land ownership, free from encumbrances.
Nova Scotia achieved great prosperity from the so-called square timber trade and the use of its high-grade of spruce and pine, not only for shipbuilding and the supplying of masts for the British Navy, but also because Napoleon's blockades in Europe dictated that new sources of timber be found. The result was that the beams and interiors of many large and stately structures, residences and public buildings in Great Britain have come from the forests of Nova Scotia. However, as the Minister of Supply and Services pointed out, in his region this high grading of resources took a very high toll. It was very bad for the general health of our forests. After this industry reached its peak in the late 1800s replanting and other steps to repair the quality and the extent of our forests have never to this day been adequately undertaken.
Also, there has been a dramatic change from a sawlog to a pulpwood type of economy. It has been only in the last 25 years that any significant amount of reforestation has been undertaken. I want to again pay tribute to K. C. Irving for what he has done in the Province of New Brunswick and to mention that some of the large forest companies in Nova Scotia have come to a belated realization that they have to put something back in, that they have to take part in reforestation and make certain that the kinds of trees that are planted are of good quality.
At the present time there has to be, as other speakers have said, a great deal of work undertaken to improve the forestry sector. I want to speak primarily about eastern Canada. Various diseases affecting both hard and soft woods have
caused great losses to Nova Scotia. Our beech, birch and now our elm have been affected. Logging practices in recent years have been abominable. Heavy equipment has been taken in and the land has been scarred. New growth has been destroyed, which has led to erosion and very severe damage to the environment. Small streams are clogged with brush and silt. The situation has become very offensive to people who care about forestry and the environment.
I believe that one of the things that both the Nova Scotia Government and the federal Government can do is to encourage the retention and expansion by private land owners of the small woodlot holdings they have. This, as I mentioned earlier, is part of the historical pattern that characterized our Province. Much can be done to encourage such ownership. Better forest management and marketing opportunities for small land owners can be facilitated, not by Government interference or by the use of a lot of subsidies, but by more education and assistance in marketing pulp and lumber from small producers.
Pulp companies and large processors have no objection to exporting the end result of what they produce. For some reason, and I suppose it is natural, they would like to have a captive source of supply. They are very reluctant to see small producers get involved, as they used to do, in exporting lumber and even pulp to other countries. The balance of payments and the general business procedures affecting the best interest of this country should be looked at. The federal Government together with the provincial Government should look at some of the captive supply situations that exist in some of the markets in eastern Canada. The federal Government can participate, not only in cost sharing projects and the supplying of expertise but, as was said earlier by my friend, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) in a question to the Minister, by imaginative taxation policies that provide shelters and opportunities for long-term development in forestry resources under private ownership.
It is also in the interest of the Government of Nova Scotia in considering forestry regulations, and this true of other Provinces I am sure, to refrain from allowing municipalities to pass regulations and bylaws which will affect the proper use and long-term planning of both agriculture and forestry properties. Governments themselves have caused problems because large areas of land have been wasted by highways and power corridors and some large tracts of Crown land have not been utilized in accordance with good forest practices.
When Crown grants were the rule in Nova Scotia, land owners were not restricted to any significant extent and, for the most part, they used the land to its best advantage. Increasing limitations on the use of forest land, either for bureaucratic convenience or to further satisfy the interests of Governments which have become ever more intrusive and manipulative have, to a large extent, eroded the landowner's rights to the point where it is now an exaggeration to say that an owner can truly call himself a freeholder of property. Pretty
May 30, 1983

soon he will simply be a tenant subject to the arbitrary interference of either the municipal or provincial Governments.
I repeat that the best thing that could happen for the encouragement of forestry and for the highest and best use of forest lands in the Province of Nova Scotia would be more opportunities for the purchase of small tracts of Crown land by Nova Scotians, or indeed by Canadians or even people from other countries who wish to have the satisfaction of owning a piece of our Province and treating it properly, using proper practices of silviculture and forest management. Anyone who has a sincere interest in owning a few acres of forest land will treat it properly.
I have always been against the practice that has grown up in recent years of Governments acquiring large tracts of land. As one would really not expect, Governments made it very difficult for its own people to obtain access to it for the leasing of a few acres for firewood harvesting, or for building a cottage by a lake or stream. I cannot understand why the Government did not learn and does not continue to profit from the past experience, because people who truly care about forestry are not liable to be careless with matches. They are not liable to cut down all their trees. In fact, history has shown that people who own their own land are far more careful of it and take far better care of it than do people who lease timber rights from the Government and leave a wasteland behind them by clear cutting the land. In many cases, that land would have been better off if it had been burned rather than logged in the way that I have described.
It has been said that people who plant trees do not think of themselves. Certainly the long-term nature of forestry cannot be over-emphasized. The original stands of high quality timber, the black spruce and white pine, oak and ash, and other original growth that once stood in the forests of Nova Scotia, must be reseeded or replanted now. I sometimes think that the ravages of the spruce budworm might have been Mother Nature's way of removing a very undesirable and inferior type of growth that perhaps grew up simply because of an accident of history.
Your Honour probably does not know that by the turn of the century, there were over 60,000 small farms in the Province of Nova Scotia. When the industrial expansion in the United States began to accelerate, the decendants of the people who had labouriously cleared that land, sometimes by hand, decided that their fortunes would be improved if they went to Chicago, Boston or Los Angeles to work. As a result, when they left, nature quickly reclaimed all of those lands that were so labouriously cleared. What grew up, however, was not the original growth but generally a mixture of alder bushes and what we call cat spruce, as well as wild cherry and other waste trees.
This provides another possible area of research which could benefit areas like Nova Scotia where some of the land is marginal for farming in any event, but this land has demonstrated that it can grow good forests. I believe that in some cases, soils of this type, besides being planted with the original
Supply
forest, could be planted with fast growing trees like aspen which would provide a ready source of wood alcohol or ethanol. Other countries have started to do this. Brazil is one of them. There is no reason why, with some imagination, parts of the land of eastern Canada could not in effect be re-ruralized by the growth of certain types of fast growing trees that could quickly produce ethanol. Certainly that would be a far better and higher use of the land than allowing it to lie fallow as it is now in some cases.
Another thing that I would like to see the federal and provincial Governments do, Mr. Speaker, is to become more interested in the highest and best use of timber. I see that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. Too often I have seen the scarce good timber that still remains in Nova Scotia ground up for pulp instead of converted into lumber which is a much more worth-while resource.
In any event, it is pretty obvious that with our traditions and respect for the ownership of land and in appreciation for what forestry meant to us in our early years as a Province and, before that, as a successful colony, we should be very conscious of the help that the federal Government can be to us. As a joint project, we should all work together so that both Governments can do their share, not by making subsidies available, not by being intrusive, but by providing expertise in research, scientific development and marketing for this industry.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I direct a short question to the Hon. Member which is again on the theme that 1 had raised before. In the Hon. Member's Province and, of course, in the adjoining Province of New Brunswick, there are many native people, and of course this particular resource is of great interest to them. In my own area there are large bands such as the Nimpkish people of Alert Bay, the Helltsuk people of Bella Bella, the Kitasoo people of Klemtu, the Nuxalli people of Bella Coola, the Mowachaht people of Gold River and Sechelt, the Sliammon people of Powell River, and each one of these particular groups of people either has access to large reserves of timber or they actually have band timber available. Yet there are no Government programs that provide any meaningful assistance to allow these people to develop those resources, balance out and strengthen and diversify their economy.
It is my understanding that the same limitation exists in the region of the country for which the Hon. Member was putting forward a case on development of the forest industry. I would ask why he has not chosen to stress this very important, albeit small, area of forestry development and what he would be prepared to do as an individual to bring this case forward quickly with the Government to try to make sure that native people are in fact given access to forest industry in a meaningful way.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am pleased to say to my colleague that I can see no reason why, in the Province of Nova Scotia, some of the Crown lands which are under provincial ownership could not be made available to some of the native people who, as he knows, are mostly Micmac. In my own constituency, there is a small band

May 30, 1983
Supply
which is desperately in need of access to some timber. 1 think that it is an excellent initiative.
If there was ever a case for an affirmative action program in terms of giving native people a chance to take part in the lands and forest industry where they have a special feel for the forest and nature or for giving them access to Crown lands, I think that this is a valid one. It is very tough to run an equal opportunity program and an affirmative action program at the same time, and I am pretty sceptical of some of them, but this is one affirmative action program that I would support. From time to time, I have spoken to the Government of Nova Scotia about it.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an interesting bit of progress made by Members of the House. I heard the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) and several Members of the Opposition speak on this. I know where this Party stands but I wonder if the previous speaker, whose inclination seems to be as clear as my own, would be prepared to join with this Party and press the Minister of Supply and Services, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to develop quickly, before the House adjourns, a specific program to aid our native people with access to and the development of their forest resources.
I wonder, also if it would be possible for the three groups in the House to move on that question. Would the Hon. Member be prepared to consult and work toward that goal before we rise in June?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the Hon. Member has a sincere interest in this, but he should not be giving the impression that only he and his Party favour such an initiative. I would be very pleased to join with him.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to do part of my speech in French, to show Francophones that there are a few Newfoundlanders who realize that French is more important in Canada than Chinese.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, another very important reason is that when my fellow Newfoundlander, my dear friend the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), is chosen as the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, he will need someone who can understand French, translate it into English and then translate the English into Newfie!

I begin my few remarks without wanting to disturb my good friend, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). For the information of the Hon. Member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid) I simply said that I fully support the
candidacy of my compatriot and dear friend, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I recognize that he will have many needs once he becomes, as he surely will, the Tory Leader.
I want to begin by saying how I commend the Opposition for choosing forestry for today's debate. Just when I was about to lose completely all my confidence in the Official Opposition, it came through with something sensible. I suppose that is exactly what we can expect from the eminently sensible Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).
Forestry is big business in the Province which I represent. I grew up a couple of miles from a pulp mill and a dozen miles from the giant paper mill at Grand Falls. It is now owned and operated by Abitibi but was formerly known as the Anglo Newfoundland Development Company in the great days of British imperialism. I worked for AND for two weeks as a woodcutter in the days before chainsaws. I might say that my career was cut a little short. I was living in camp and therefore the cost of my board and lodging was deducted from my wages. At the end of the first pay period I discovered that I owed money to the company, so I concluded very quickly that my destiny was elsewhere than in the forest industry.


An Hon. Member:: You should have worked harder.


An Hon. Member:: That is free enterprise.


Roger Simmons: They are a live bunch opposite today, Mr. Speaker. That is a sign of a restful weekend. They would be more tired if they visited their constituencies more often and came back here for a rest.
The electoral riding of Burin-St. George's-


Mr. McDermid:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: That is on the south shore, on the South Coast of Newfoundland, I say to my friend from Brampton-Georgetown. I am willing to wager, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes the Hon. Member does not talk; that there are actually times when he does not babble all the time.
In the riding that I represent, Burin-St. George's, forestry is a very important component in two particular parts of the riding, St. George's in the western part of the riding and Bay D'Espoir in the central part of the riding.
I take particular interest in the resolution set down by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River. I would invite him to reflect on the wording of the resolution, particularly in light of the comments made in the House today by his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). I thought those two gentlemen were careful to put some distance between themselves and the resolution. 1 thought they were wise to demonstrate that they really did not support the strong condemnation in the wording of the resolution. I was encouraged to hear from them and from the Hon.
May 30, 1983

Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) that not all Government initiatives in the forest industry are wrong. Those Hon. Members voiced a feeling that is widespread in the forestry sector.
The federal Government's contribution to a healthy forest industry in this country has been and continues to be impressive. Under the leadership of the Minister of the Environment and the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Canadian Forestry Service, Mr. Les Reed, we have made great strides in the last few years in lending adequate and appropriate support to the forest industry.
I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. He continues to confuse me somewhat, not by his brilliance, although he has that and is unquestionably a very able man, but by the inconsistency he brings to the debate. Usually I hear him lamenting what in his view is the considerable extent of Government intervention in private enterprise. Today, however, he makes a case, and a very good case, for even more intervention. I think particularly of his comments relating to reforestation. He talks rather passionately about the need for more involvement of Government in that particular area. That is not consistent with his other remarks about Government involvement. I am pleased to see that in this particular area he recognizes that if our forests are to be properly conserved and regenerated, continued and active federal Government involvement will be required.
1 want to draw the attention of the House to a number of important initiatives taken by the Government. Perhaps the highest profile is enjoyed by the forestry agreements between the Government of Canada and the several Provinces. These agreements are now in place and most of them will shortly come up for renegotiation. I have no doubt that the Government's commitment in that particular area will continue. Over a five-year period under these agreements the Government's commitment is in the order of $750 million.
The Minister of Supply and Services referred to the water bombers, the CL-215, which represent another $150 million federal money. I could mention the job-creation activities in the order of $200 million, the forestry school for $15 million, research and development for $5.5 million, the initiative in the Gaspe which is another $20 million. With those figures 1 have enumerated amounts which total about $1.25 billion. It is important to keep the mandate of the federal Government in mind in this particular respect.
It is important to keep in mind that almost any initiative which the federal Government takes in the forestry area has to be hand in glove with those of the provincial Governments. Having said that, I stress that the federal Government does have important responsibilities in this sector in so far as regional development is concerned, as well as employment growth, export development and its impact on balance of payments. The whole research and development area as it relates to forestry is one in which the Government must continue to show new leadership.
Supply
I suppose if one were to state concisely the over-all mandate and responsibility of the federal Government in this area, it would be in terms of the wise use and conservation of the renewable resources of the forestry industry, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the most important way in which Canada can become more competitive in this sector is with an abundant supply of high quality timber at an economical price. The forest renewal policy of the Government is designed to offset threatened timber supply problems and thereby, in the long run, to reduce costs.
There is more to the forest sector, Mr. Speaker, than simply planting seedlings and tending the new crops. There is a human resources program already implemented by this Government which provides for high quality manpower. Some of the components of that particular human resources program include summer jobs for 300 forestry school students, graduate scholarships for 50 Canada forestry scholars every year, grants to forestry schools for visiting scholars and research contracts, and upgrading of the R and D scientific staff in the Canadian Forestry Service. More than $16 million have been committed by this Government to this program over a four-year period.
Let us take a look now at the expansion of the research and development program in the Canadian Forestry Service. For the year 1983-84, a commitment of $5.5 million has been made to that program. In addition, new and expanded research buildings will soon be started in Victoria, British Columbia, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Quebec City and Fredericton, New Brunswick. The reason for proceeding first with high quality manpower and research capacity is that we can better field forestry and make our scarce forest renewal dollars stretch even further if we concentrate on those priorities at the outset.
I would like to speak for a moment on another issue which is important in any discussion of forestry and the forestry industry in Canada, and that is the United States countervailing duty threat against Canada's lumber, and this Government's role in successfully countering that particular threat. It has been 20 years, Mr. Speaker, since Canada has faced such an ominous threat to its export trade as the U.S. countervail action against our soft wood lumber. Fortunately, the countervail threat may now be distinguished, at least put behind us for a moment.
It has been alleged that the Government of Canada has failed to carry out its share of the responsibility for fighting the U.S. industry's pressure. The tension arose because of the severe slump in lumber markets world-wide, but especially in U.S. residential construction which was brought on by high interest rates. Normally, the U.S. customers are pleading for Canadian supplies because they themselves cannot produce more than 60 per cent to 70 per cent of their soft wood lumber requirements in a normal market. Fortunately, the Canadians were supported by the National Association of Homebuilders, the North American Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association, the International Woodworkers of America, and by many others. Without taking you, Mr. Speaker, through the details of our repsonse to that countervail action, I believe it is important to record that the issue was successfully fought

May 30, 1983
Supply
because all concerned recognized the wisdom of our case and the folly of the U.S. private enterprise case in his particular issue.
I would like to comment briefly on the criticism which was aimed at the federal Government for refusing to pay a part of the cost. First of all, the action by the U.S. people did not involve a charge by the U.S. administration, but rather by a small segment of the U.S. lumber industry. It is traditional that industry bear the main burden of defence, whether it is with respect to steel, potatoes or some other product, in this case, forest products. Second, the Canadian soft wood lumber committee had the expertise to conduct its own defence, and did so with the collaboration of the several Governments involved, the federal Government of Canada and the provincial Governments which were directly affected by this countervail threat.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that rather ominous threat to which I have made brief reference, the forestry relations between Canada and the United States have been quite positive and, I believe, mutually supportive over many years. One could take a number of examples. Perhaps the first which comes to mind is the CANUSA agreement, the Canada-U.S. Forestry Agreement, which in particular embraces a co-operative research effort on the spruce bud-worm. It is a program from which we have seen some very positive results and some cost-saving benefit to Canada and, I am sure, to the United States. I could mention the collaborative initiative of fire suppression between the two countries. That agreement was signed last year by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and Secretary Black of the U.S.
For many years there had been some exchange of water bomber aircraft. Much of this was done under rather awkward and hasty arrangements. However, now we have formalized those arrangements and put them in place to facilitate a rapid response to forest fire emergencies, particularly in those areas which are fairly near our border.
I could mention, as another example of U.S.-Canadian cooperation in this area, the supply-demand working group. The U.S. and Canadian Forestry Services are now developing working groups on timber supply and forest products demand. In the area of investment capital, there have been good signs of collaboration. The flow of forest industry capital funds has moved between Canada and the United States with relative freedom. As a matter of interest, foreign ownership of Canada's forest products manufacturing facilities has declined over the past 10 to 15 years from 35 per cent to something less tahn 25 per cent during that period. That change has occurred without any public controversy.
I could mention the area of wood promotion as another example of the kind of co-operation which exists between the two countries, co-operation which is to our mutual benefit. The lumber producers in Canada and the U.S. have worked closely together over the past 15 years in joint trade promotion
activities. The National Forest Products Association of Washington derives one quarter of its annual budget for product acceptance from Canadian lumber producers. The American Wook Council secures 10 per cent of its budget from Canada. In this way, we work together as two countries to counter the threat of competing materials and to improve design standards. The forestry relations which I have described briefly give ample evidence of how closely our two countries are working together at the official level to the mutual benefit of all concerned.
There are many other issues, Mr. Speaker, but I see my time has expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members wishing to rise to ask questions?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-National Resources-Processing of uranium-Export of concentrate; the Hon. Member for Mississauga South-Finance-Income security investment plan, (b) Potential of small businesses to create jobs; the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)- Mines and Mining-Closing of Sherritt Gordon Mine at Lynn Lake, Manitoba, (b) Request that tax write-off provisions be changed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Oberle:
That this House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forests and its indifference to the threat posed to Canada's forests and forest industries by pests, fire, pollution and foreign competition, and calls upon the Government to stimulate the research needed to promote superior growth and diversify export products, and acknowledge its responsibility to protect the Canadian environment and the millions of Canadians whose livelihood depends upon Canada's forest resources.
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Hon. Member on the Government side of the House, who was at one time, I believe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister concerned with this issue. Given the fact his speech did not include reference to native people and their access to
*


May 30, 1983

the forest industry, although he rattled off a number of figures indicating employment opportunities, can he tell the House how many of the people hired through the initiatives he mentioned have been native people? How many of the research facilities will be targeted toward the natives to aid them in the economic development of native reserves? What kind of native employment targets has the Government developed in the forest industry?
Given the fact that a number of people in this House have indicated their support today for immediate initiatives to make sure that the native peoples have access to the forest resource, would he be willing to support, in co-operation with other Members here and in his own Party, access by native people to the forest resource for the development of something like a native forest development corporation? Or perhaps he would support affirmative action so that companies who receive benefits from the federal Government, such as Crown Zeller-bach, MacMillan-Bloedel and others, hire native people on an affirmative action basis. Would he lend his support to training programs being established for young native people to get into the industry, whether it is in the Canadian Forestry Service, private companies or through Employment and Immigration sponsored programs?
Can the Hon. Member indicate whether or not he is prepared to try to work with other Members of the House to foster co-operation between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian Affairs to develop and execute effective programs so as to make native involvement in the forest industry in Canada a reality?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) for the question. I can support any initiative at the federal Government level which would give fair access to native people to the industry. I can identify with much of the spirit of the question the Hon. Member has put. I have in my own riding an important native community, that of Conne River, on the South Coast of Newfoundland.


Frank Oberle: Are they Indian?


Roger Simmons: Yes, they are Micmac Indians, for the benefit of my friend, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River.


Frank Oberle: Tell your Minister.


Roger Simmons: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) well understands that they are Micmac people. He has given much of his time on a priority basis to seeing that $1 million of federal funding flows to the people of Conne River, despite a rather deliberate and longstanding procrastination by the Hon. Member's political friends, the Tory Government of Newfoundland, who for 22 months blocked that money from going to that community at some considerable pain, discomfort and inconvenience to the native people of Conne River. I am glad he mentioned my good
Supply
friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because the Minister is the reason why I do not have any fear that this Government will continue to address the problem of fair access for native people to various programs.
I started to say a moment ago, before the interjection, Mr. Speaker, that the spirit of the question from the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River is one with which I can identify. But I am a little surprised he feels the need to ask the question because if he looked at the policy of this Government, whether it is in Indian and Northern Affairs, Employment and Immigration or other areas, he would see that what he is asking is reflected consistently in the approach of this Government to the expenditure of funds and employment policies.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the very reason I asked the question today is that, unfortunately and for whatever reason, it has not been part of the speeches of some Members of this House. It has not been part of the priorities and planning of this Government. What 1 suggested, and what other Members have recognized and said today, is that they are willing to commit themselves to try, before this House rises, to put constructive proposals to the Government. I outlined five things that I felt would work. I asked the Member whether or not he would be prepared to work with other Members of this House in a non-partisan way to try to improve the access of native people to the forest industry. It is a fact that since the turn of the century native people have suffered upwards of 90 per cent unemployment. In my area they are dependent on a sole resource, the fishing industry. Without finding fault, laying blame or going back to the past, I would like to see this House look forward to the future, and would the Hon. Member be prepared to offer his services in a non-partisan way to try to achieve this before the House rises?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 answered that question in passing earlier. I said I could give my support to any initiative which ensures fair access by native people to employment and other programs underwritten by the public Treasury. That would certainly include working in a nonpartisan fashion, as 1 am known to do on all occasions with the gentleman from Comox-Powell River, my good friends in the Tory Party-


Arnold John Malone: Name one.


Roger Simmons: -and my equally good friends in the NDP. By all means, Mr. Speaker, I would name many, but I would not want to give them an unfair advantage in the leadership race by so doing.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to ask the Minister a question, but as my friend opposite is the spokesman for the Government I will ask him about his private opinion of the Canadair water bomber. I concede it may have a limited use in some areas, but coming as he does from Newfoundland where it is not always possible to find suitable lakes, would he not agree that helicopters are also a very useful way to fight forest fires, sometimes more so than these, some say, obsolete water

May 30, 1983
Supply
bombers? Would he support a representation to his colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) to give the armed services a role in fighting forest fires as a part of their flight training?


Roger Simmons: First of all, in relation to the preamble of the Hon. Member for Central Nova, I am not a spokesman for the Government. 1 am happy to support the Government because of the excellence of its policies but 1 am not a spokesman for the Government.
Having said that, he invited me to give my private opinion. That I can do very quickly because the technology of the two types of equipment is something I am not very well versed in. I can tell him, though, that our experience in Newfoundland with water bombers has been quite a happy one. We can point to a number of otherwise very grave incidents which have been avoided because we have had those water bombers available. As the Hon. Member knows, they have been used in Newfoundland for many, many years. How their capabilities compare with those of the helicopters he mentioned I have no idea because I am not informed on the respective technology involved.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter the debate, but before getting into the technical matters before us I should like to point out that there is a person in this House who has probably done more for forestry in Canada in the last couple of years than any Member sitting in the House, and that is the Deputy Minister, Les Reed, who is fortunately with us in the Gallery today. I am sure he is very interested in hearing the debate today.
Looking specifically at the motion before us which was put forward by my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), there are a couple of things 1 would like to raise because they have been put in there for very obvious reasons and they raise some concerns with me. He says in his motion that the House condemns the Government for its neglect of Canada's forest. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the Government of Canada controls only 1 per cent of the forests in Canada, some 92 per cent falling within the provincial domain and some 7 per cent being in private hands.
1 have some difficulty with another point raised by the Hon. Member, and I am sure he will be able to clarify it in the question period. It is in relation to a constitutional point which he raises toward the end of the motion which states:
-acknowledge its responsibility to protect the Canadian environment-
I recognize that the federal Government has a certain responsibility, but it is certainly my understanding that the domain of the Provinces includes the environment. We can deal with that in terms of acid rain and so on. I am sure he meant it in that light.
I certainly agree with the part of the motion which calls on the Government to stimulate research massively. More research is a crying need and, as we know from the committee
and the excellent work done by Mr. Reed, it is an area where Canada has fallen drastically behind. It is an issue we must deal with very quickly.
While I agree with the theme of the motion, I have found difficulty with it after having gone to the Parliamentary Library to read a copy of the 1979 budget of the Hon. Member and his Party. The only references to forestry that are even close are to sparkling wine and pickles. The word "forestry" does not even appear in the entire Tory budget of 1979. Therefore, it is evident that in recent times the Tories have not held forestry in as high esteem as pickles and sparkling wine.
Let me talk about British Columbia for a moment, a Province which is of equal importance to myself and to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River. I am concerned about the provincial sphere there where, in recent years, a fund has been set up to deal with silviculture and replanting. I believe there was approximately S230 million in that fund which was gathered from the forest companies. Unfortunately, it has all been spent on the big gas bag in Vancouver, B.C. Place, and northeast coal. Unfortunately for us and future generations of Canadians, and British Columbians, those hundreds of millions of dollars which should be going toward future forests have disappeared into other priorities of Mr. Bennett's Party, the copatriot party of my hon. friend for Prince George-Peace River.
I have another concern which I am sure the Tories will deal with. That concern is log export. During the last number of years it has reached epidemic proportions in British Columbia. We now see entire pages of logs for sale from companies such as Standing Green, Hemlock, Balsam, Spruce, Cypress and others, by companies such as Macblo, Canadian Overseas and Crown Zellerbach. They are all trying to sell off our future heritage.
A very excellent paper was written by the British Columbia local of the International Woodworkers of America. It concerns the number of jobs that will be lost by the year 2000 as a result of present levels of export. We are now looking at losing about 30,000 jobs by the year 2000 simply from the logs that are being exported now.
Let me quote from a recent article in the Vancouver Sun. It says:
Shortage of Asian timber have also created a high demand for North American logs in the Far East but companies must prove the logs are surplus before they're approved for export. Shipments of uncut B.C. logs have jumped to 724,000 cubic metres during the first eight months of 1982, more than two per cent of the provincial harvest, compares with 591,000 cubic metres during the same period last year, about 1.5 per cent of the B.C. harvest.
1 do not hear any Members from the Government side, the Tory Party or particularly from the Social Credit Party trying to deal with that. It is a very real issue. While it is free enterprise and those logs can be sold now, the logs will go to Japan or Indonesia and the jobs are there instead of in Canada. I think this country and the Province of British Columbia must very soon adopt a policy of no raw log export, because those jobs are for ourselves and future Canadians.

May 30, 1983

Let me deal with a point which has been raised continuously during the debate today by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). It is in relation to the very important matter of the high levels of non-involvement by native people in the forest sector, not only in B.C. but across Canada. I would have hoped that this motion would have included that, but 1 think that, through the solicitation and questions and very positive responses from the Official Opposition and the Government, we will see some new policies coming forward in Parliament. Perhaps in the next Speech from the Throne we will see some major steps taken in terms of accessing native people to the forest industry in terms of research and development jobs, forest tenure, training, affirmative action with existing corporations in the industry as well as direct industrial development for many of the small rural communities. Many of these communities are similar to those shared by my colleague from Comox-Powell River and other colleagues from British Columbia.
Let me deal with the Environment Canada publication entitled "Policy Statement:	A Framework for Forest
Renewal". This is a good document which was produced last fall in Ottawa. I believe it gives us an idea of the analysis of the federal Government about where the forest industry is going and what problems exist. It points out the following:
The total value of shipments exceeded $23 billion in 1981. Forest products make up one-seventh of all manufactured goods in Canada. The share runs as high as 30 percent in New Brunswick and 50 per cent in British Columbia. Forest industry exports reached $13 billion in 1981, or 16 percent of the total. The forest industry and its employees paid over $3 billion in taxes and resource revenues in 1979, of which 43 percent was federal and 57 percent provincial.
I will come back to those two figures in a moment when I get to the table in this document.
This document goes on to state that directly and indirectly this industry provides one million jobs in Canada. It goes on to say:
As an employment generator among the primary resource sectors, the forest sector ranks first or second in 10 out of 16 economic regions in Atlantic Canada, in 8 of Quebec's 10 economic regions and in all 6 of those of Ontario. In British Columbia the forest sector is first in 8 regions and second in only 2 where mining and smelting dominate.
I think it gives us some indication of the reason why this debate is so important. 1 was interested to note, after reviewing the last 10 or 15 years of debates in the House of Commons, that it is very rare that any forestry matter is raised in the House of Commons even though it is the largest industry in Canada. In terms of balance of trade and actual job creation, it far exceeds the petroleum sector and agriculture combined. Those are two subjects which are frequently debated in the House, but rarely is that kind of profile given to forestry or consideration given to the steps that should be taken with respect to the forest industry. These steps should be taken particularly by the Government and, as I pointed out, by new Governments in office when the word "forest" or "forestry" fail to appear anywhere in its budget.
Let me continue to read from the same document. It says:
This sector has the potential to provide additional employment for approximately 100,000 workers, of which one-quarter could be in forest renewal. The
Supply
potential also exists to double foreign exchange earnings, increase timber sale and tax revenues, and contribute to regional development aspirations.
It is quite clear that a signal is coming from the industry that it wants to double its revenue at a time in British Columbia, for example, when the forest service has indicated that we are very quickly approaching a 20-year falldown effect. If we continue to cut at present rates without some kind of very substantial thinning, silvicultural and replanting process, we will run out of trees and actually be forced in a little more than a decade from now to reduce cutting rather than increase it.
The paper makes some interesting points with respect to the timber supply situation. It states:
In effect, we mined the virgin forests and gave too little thought to the future crop. Forestry is now in a critical transition stage where mining must give way to systematic forest renewal and harvesting.
I very much agree. I know the writer of those comments. I think they are very true and something which this House must deal with. It goes on to say:
World demand for pulp and paper is expected to grow by 3 percent annually for the next 2 decades, whereas demand for lumber and other wood products should increase by about one percent annually. However, market opportunities mean little if timber supply cannot be augmented.
The limits are in sight for premium softwood sawlogs-
We are aware of this, but British Columbia still exports three quarters of a million cunit of our No. 1 logs offshore. It does this knowing full well that an accurate and undisputed study conducted by the workers in the Province point out that it will mean the loss of 30,000 jobs. Yet nothing is done in British Columbia. I do not hear any federal Tory Members from British Columbia publicly saying that this kind of practice should be stopped.
The paper continues:
-in many locations and supplies of larger, higher quality hardwood logs have been largely depleted. Pulpwood shortages are emerging in communities across the country. Only a fraction of our forests are being managed for sustained production, even today. In most cases the timber resource is renewable, both promptly and adequately, only if action is taken immediately following harvest or natural calamity.
That means that if a fire has gone through the area a replanting process should be undertaken immediately. If it is clearcut, no time should be wasted. As we know, literally hundreds of thousands of square kilometres in Canada that have been harvested since the turn of the century are sitting idle and not returning in the type of soft or hard wood that forest companies and various forest specialists expected they would. In early 1980, CCREM, which is the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, endorsed a target. The target was a level of 210 million cubic metres by the year 2000, or approximately 40 per cent above the harvest in 1981. The point which we must consider is that with the present practices in Canada and the present rate of harvest with which we are involved, we will simply never be able to achieve the levels which have already been endorsed by Environment and Resource Ministers.

May 30, 1983
Supply
The report goes on to touch on three aspects. One involves forest renewal. That is something which the House must debate extensively. Another is closer utilization of the existing forest in terms of fibre supply, recycling and all the rest. That must be done very soon. There must also be better protection from fire, insects and disease. 1 think all Hon. Members of the House are aware of the fact that far more forest is lost to disease and fire than is actually harvested in this country.
Although the Government side has moved on a few water bombers and a few techniques here and there, there must be a really substantive change in forest policy, not only in terms of the kinds of equipment provided, but as well, rather than continuing to pursue monoculture in terms of the forest sector, we must go back to the diversified forest. This is important because of the long distance crowning effect of certain kinds of fires and the massive movement of certain kinds of pests. There are problems which simply have not been alleviated by chemical spraying. We must move very quickly to some kind of integrated pest management approach whereby we start studying, more intensively, the biological side of controlling pests. I know it is something the Canadian Forestry Service is considering. However, having suffered massive reduction in staff for 15 years, it will be a long process, as touched upon by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). In the last three years the problem has increased about 10 per cent. We need a massive increase in the availability of highly qualified technical forestry staff to deal with the questions involved in returning to a diversified forest, silviculture problems and pest control.
The report goes on to point out that current expenditures on forest renewal by senior Governments and industry are believed to be on the order of $300 million annually, but that an expected total annual expenditure of $650 million will be required by all parties simply to deal with the present problems. It breaks it into two parts. Basically, planting must be increased by about two and half times, from 200,000 hectares to 500,000 hectares, with genetically superior seedlings. In terms of silviculture treatment, weeding, spacing and fertilizing, that must be increased by a power of 400 per cent, from
100.000	hectares to 400,000 hectares annually. That involves a cost of $300 million.
An area in the report which gives me concern, which I am sure is shared by my friend, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, is that an expenditure of only $50 million per year is proposed in the report to deal with the backlog of idle forest land. That would bring in only about another
100.000	hectares a year. With the enormous backlog we have,
I think Parliament must make a much stronger move in getting a base fund into our national budget to deal with the backlog problem.
Some Provinces, such as British Columbia, have been using their replanting and silviculture funds for other purposes. Before they are given any comparable funds from the federal Government for reforestation, they should be encouraged, through whatever means possible, to ensure that their own
programs are in order. There should be at least 20-year plans operating, as has been recommended in another part of the report.
The concern which I believe stimulated today's debate comes from the table on page 5, where we see the federal involvement, which has in fact been zero for many years, going to $50 million last year, which was really a shift of DREE funds, only rising to $130 million by 1987 in terms of overall forestry, out of $650 million. Whereas the federal Government's involvement was 37 per cent last year, it means that by 1987 it would drop to 20 per cent, an effective drop of 50 per cent. However, those figures are somewhat difficult to deal with unless one takes them in their proper context. In 1980, for example, the federal and provincial Governments took about $3 billion in taxes directly and from resource revenue, of which 43 per cent went to the federal Government and 57 per cent went provincially.
A myriad of studies have been done, and it is evident that only five cents out of every dollar taxed by the federal Government from the forest sector, whether directly in taxes or from income taxes or resource revenue, has ever gone back into the forest sector. This is a hideous state of affairs, because we have learned from other studies that we are getting into a massive fall-down situation in terms of inadequate supplies of wood. Earlier today I raised this question with the Minister of the Environment, but I do not think his response hit the nail on the head. He tried to fudge around on the issue, saying that UIC Section 38 and DOE support are not included in the 1987 projections because all those agreements are yet to be negotiated.
The House should be considering putting a very substantial sum before the House in terms of a base funding, permanent and perpetual funding, basically receiving a good chunk. Rather than having a situation where five cents out of every dollar goes back to the forest sector, let us ensure that 50 per cent plus goes back in terms of research and development, replanting and silviculture, and in terms of an integrated approach to recycling, getting native people involved in the industry, and so on.
I note that 1 do not have much time left in which to speak, but I would like to touch upon a couple of points with regard to recycling, something which is not included in the motion. However, the House must consider the matter if we are to discuss coherently the problems in the forest sector. It is not only a matter of having a proper study but also of considering the problems now being created at landfill sites, basically as a result of wood fibres in various forms, whether they be paper bags, cardboard, boards or whatever. Following a thorough and balanced assessment, we should consider the feasibility, benefits and costs of using recycled fibre, not only in the pulp industry but also in terms of biomass for electrical production, heat production, and so on.
A few moments ago I mentioned the need to change our ideas from monoculture to a more diversified and mixed forest, not only to help reduce insect and fire outbreaks, but also so
May 30, 1983

that we may more appropriately utilize our soils and forest lands.
There is an abundance of information I would like to put on the record, but I would like to make one final point taken from a recent forestry publication. It points out that of the 800,000 hectares of timber the industry harvests each year, a mere one quarter is artifically replanted or seeded. Given that, another one quarter or so will regenerate reasonably well on its own. The depressing sum is that only half of the cut forest each year has a prayer of one day returning. Added to that was the current rash of forest fires in 1980, the worst fire season in 50 years. The area burned was five times the area harvested.
Parliament has a big job and I think it is a non-partisan issue with which we should deal more effectively than not even mentioning it in the 1979 Tory budget or in terms of the paltry sums which have been allocated for far during this Parliament.


Mr. Huntington:: I am very interested in the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that this is such an important matter for the country and that it should be nonpartisan, then jabbing in the statement at the beginning and end of his speech that there was nothing concerning it in the Tory budget. 1 will address that subject when I am given an opportunity to speak in the House.
1 am also interested in the Hon. Member's condemnation of the exporting of whole logs from B.C. to Japan. I think I heard him properly. I would not want to be unjust. I would like to ask him if he is not aware that there are at least four categories, fallers, buckers, truckers, sawmill workers and longshoremen, involved in the forest industry out in B.C., and that when the market collapsed before cut lumber was out of our sawmills, not only were these sawmill workers out of work, but the fallers and buckers, the truckers and longshoremen were also suffering, and that many logs were cut and fallen, particularly up in the Squamish area, and they could not get to market unless they were taken to market and sold as logs. Is he against that type of activity? Is he against a market activity which keeps the fallers, the buckers, the truckers and the longshoremen at work?


James Ross Fulton: I am glad to have an opportunity to address those two questions. I hope the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) does have a copy of the 1979 budget. I have read it through and I would be interested in learning where forestry is referred to. On the second point, in terms of the export of raw logs, as I said, an abundance of studies have been conducted. The present escalating levels of raw log export from British Columbia will mean the actual loss of 30,000 jobs, right from fallers, buckers, haulers, loaders, shippers to the sawmill workers, that will all go down the tube because logs are being exported now. Those are No. 1 logs which are being exported.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that with logs being exported 30,000 jobs will be lost. 1 am suggesting 30,000 jobs would not be lost on the export of the
Supply
logs. There is no market for them, yet those logs were fallen and lying in the bush. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that it is far better to have those other three categories at work and the harvest of logs that was lying on the ground shipped to markets which can use the logs than to let it all go to pot.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not completely sure whether the Hon. Member for Capilano has all his facts straight. If he would look in some of the more recent copies of The Sun of Vancouver, 1 think he would see that most of the logs which are being offered for sale are standing green.


An Hon. Member:: That would be a great research facility.


James Ross Fulton: I hear an Hon. Member saying that that would be a great research facility. It is the only place in which we find the offers for sale published. They are standing green. They are in the bush. They have not been cut down yet. If we had the wood being processed, either through a pulp mill or through a sawmill, we would have the thousands of jobs at the other end rather than just the front-end jobs.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Sometimes it is unfortunate that we cannot call upon the people sitting in the Gallery. I would like to recognize the presence of Les Reed who has just left, thus I will not embarrass him. Had it been possible for Mr. Reed to participate in the debate, he would have probably said that my colleagues and I have had very serious discussions with the Minister and with departmental officials to do precisely what Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party are suggesting. Indian people throughout the country deserve a share of the economy which is generated by the forest. They should first be encouraged on their own reserves and then on public forest lands to develop their economies and start rebuilding their lives from there.
My question for the Hon. Member concerns the statistics which he quoted. He said that the federal Government owns only 1 per cent of forest lands in Canada. 1 can forgive his ignorance because it is probably a statistic which he read from the forestry department or in The Sun\ that would explain it more. The fact is that federal lands include Indian lands throughout the country. Federal lands south of the 60th parallel exceed in geographic size the Province of Nova Scotia. Most of the Indian lands are heavily wooded, some with commercially viable timber. Federal lands also include parks. While we do not cut timber in parks, the woods in our parks are a very important social asset and of course require the very tender care and attention of the federal Government, no one else.
Going to the Territories, the Hon. Member is totally ignorant because there is all kinds of commercially viable timber in the Territories and in Yukon. Of course it is difficult to get to, but if we think a hundred years ahead, we will realize that there are all kinds of land which would be marginal for agriculture but could be planted today with sufficient foresight and forward planning.

May 30, 1983
Supply
I know that this is not so much a question, but from time to time the Hon. Member needs a little enlightenment, as do all Members in the NDP, so I thought I would take this opportunity to provide him with that short enlightenment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to have an opportunity to respond to high-rolling, tough questions like that. My perception has always been that Yukon and the Northwest Territories are lands basically under their own control. I recognize that they are a federal jurisdiction. However, I was quoting from an excellent article, which 1 recommend the Hon. Member read by Roy McGregor who was the Ottawa editor of Today magazine. It reads:
But not in Canada, where it has never been clear just who might hold over-all responsibility. The federal Government once laid claim to the forests, but by 1930 the Provinces had been given most of the control, and today the Provinces own approximately 92 per cent, private sources 7 per cent, and the federal Government a mere I per cent.
I agree with the Hon. Member on his earlier comment. I would sincerely like to see more involvement of native people in the industry. I was glad to hear the comments of other Hon. Members of the House who would also like to see that proceed because unemployment among native people in Canada is still tragically at about 90 per cent. Something very serious has to be done very soon.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have another brief question. Would the Hon. Member for Skeena undertake, or should I do it myself, to enlighten the author of the article from which he quoted, because he is obviously as ignorant as he was?


James Ross Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) quite rightly pointed out that the volume of timber lost annually to disease and to pests exceeds by many times the volume of timber lost by forest fires. Several months ago when we discussed in the Chamber the Pesticide Act, a number of Members of the New Democratic Party said that we should cease and desist from the use of pesticides, especially those applied by air. If the position of the New Democratic Party is that we should not use pesticides, how are we supposed to control disease and pests in Canadian timber lands?


James Ross Fulton: I recommend that the Hon. Member read some of the studies which have been done on the chemical spraying program carried out in the Maritimes. It is now quite clear that the majority of that spraying has been quite useless. It simply has not stopped the ravages of the various species of pest which very quickly became reasonably immune to spraying. The Canadian Forest Services entered into a very interesting program which I support. Unfortunately, people such as the Hon. Member who asked the question would not be interested in learning anything about natural biological forms of pest control. There is a very interesting and important bit of work being done right now where a natural pest has been dropped and is being allowed to breed to take over some of the pests that are parasitizing forests in Canada.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to ask the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) a question. Has he ever heard a definition of economic viability of timber which excluded all consideration of the distances to market and the costs of transportation? I was absolutely astounded by the question and the apparent definition of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) a few moments ago when he said that the Arctic was full of economically viable timber but that of course it was too far from the markets to be sold. Has the Hon. Member ever heard such a definition of economic viability? It leaves me absolutely flabbergasted.


James Ross Fulton: No, I have not, but I hope the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River does not have anything to do with writing forestry policy for the Tories.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the motion before the House today. I do not agree with the negative aspects of the motion of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), but I believe the topic is one that should be debated in the House of Commons in view of the importance of the forestry industry to Canada. Not only is it important to the entire country, but it is of special importance to northern Ontario, an area which I happen to represent. In fact, it employs some 70 per cent of the region's manufacturing work force throughout northern Ontario. Throughout the Province of Ontario, 160,000 jobs are provided directly and indirectly by the industry. In fact, 17 per cent of the nation's export trade or $14.8 billion was earned from the forestry industry in 1980. Indeed, throughout the country there are some 310,000 workers directly or indirectly engaged in that industry. I am told that there are some 300 communities with the forestry industry as their sole industry. We do not have to look very far to see that this industry is very important to our country. In fact, new capital and repair expenditures in 1981 from this industry were estimated to be $4.5 billion, representing some 20 per cent of new manufacturing investment. Therefore, this industry is very important to every Canadian It is important to note that many industries are contracting in job opportunities. I am told that, with the potential in this industry, if we put in place the reforestation, research and further expansion and development of this industry, we can create some 100,000 new jobs.
On the first weekend of February this year, the northern Ontario caucus sponsored a conference in Thunder Bay entitled "Focus on Forestry". The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) and Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) chaired that conference. Some six Cabinet Ministers and also northern Ontario Members from both sides of the House attended. We made a very intensive study of the whole forest industry. We have been hurting during the past year because of the economic slowdown in North America. However, we wanted to look at the immediate problems of the industry and at such things as research.
May 30, 1983

We had people attend from the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie. We wanted to look at infrastructure and the needs of the future. We spent a great deal of time talking about reforestation. I chaired the subcommittee working on reforestation. A very important discussion took place there. I want to spend more time talking about that this afternoon.
As well, we talked about trade, transportation and other aspects of the forest industry. A number of important recommendations and representations will be coming forward to the Government from that conference. The discussions we had at that conference on reforestation was of particular importance.
1 am very conscious of it because during the past seven or eight years we have put in place throughout Canada a massive new pulp and paper and sawmill capacity.
In my own constituency of Algoma, historically at Blind River we had the largest white pine sawmill operation east of the Mississippi River. During the thirties, forties and early fifties, that sawmill could produce some 28 million boardfeet of lumber a year. It went above that on a few occasions, but that was the average amount of production. Some 700 or 800 people were involved in the manufacturing and forestry aspect of that operation. It was the largest in eastern Canada.
The Rural Development Incentives Act, put in place in 1969 and the pulp and paper agreement between the federal and provincial Governments offered incentives for the pulp and paper capacity. In Espanola in my constituency, there is a sawmill with a capacity of close to 100 million board feet a year. I am told that when it is completely developed, it will have a capacity of close to 128 million board feet a year. That is larger by at least 100 million board feet of lumber than the historically largest sawmill operation located at Blind River. At the same time, the capacity of the pulp and paper mill at Espanola will have its pulp capacity increased from 500 tons or 600 tons per day to 900 or 1000 tons per day.
Those two developments are in one little area of northern Ontario. These agreements are nation-wide. Clearly the demand for wood fibre has increased. In the sawmill operation example I gave, it has increased fivefold. These economies of scale that are being developed are good. We will be competitive with sawmills throughout the world.
The problem is developing the fibre. A few years ago I had the opportunity to make representation on behalf of a small sawmill operator to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources in Toronto. When I told him that this small operator wanted greater limits to operate his sawmill, his reply was "Well, we have really gone to the last row of hills". That is true of the whole forest industry. There are no new areas to cut. We have to grow new fibre. We have to stop mining our forests and start farming them on a renewable basis. One instrument for doing that will be the forest management agreements being put in place by many of the provincial Governments.
Ontario has put in place a forest management agreement program. Since 1979 six companies are not only cutting the fibre but are carrying out a regeneration of the fibre. This makes good sense. Obviously there is a public interest in seeing
Supply
additional fibre grown. However, there is an intense interest in that for the individual company, which in many cases has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on pulp and paper and sawmill capacity. By having in place these forest management agreements, it is in their own interest to grow the fibre that will be needed in the years ahead. Under the Ontario arrangement, they will carry out silviculture treatment, road construction, maintenance and the operation of forest limits. It is a 20-year agreement, renewable on a five-year basis.
There are six companies with 131,000 acres of land that have signed these agreements. One is Eddy Forest Products in Espanola. In 1981 it planted 300,000 trees, in 1982 1.6 million trees and in 1983 it will be planting 2 million trees. By 1986 it plans to plant 8 million trees. The company is well ahead of schedule. This kind of agreement is important.
During the last five years, the federal Government has had an important forestry agreement with the Provinces for carrying out regeneration, enhanced forest management, acceleration of reforestation and the creation of employment opportunities. That $82 million program was for construction of forest access roads. When you put in a road, you not only provide an opportunity for harvesting the forest, but you provide an opportunity for management, fertilization, fertilizing the forest for forest fire protection, insect control, and ultimately the use of those in society for leisure, recreation and so on. The forest management agreement between the federal and provincial Governments provides for a nursery expansion program and $11.5 million for planting stock. As well, there is $4.7 million for research and assessment, $2.4 million for silviculture camps and $1.1 million for soil survey. That agreement will come to an end a year from now. It is essential that the two levels of Government put in place a new forest management agreement to reach the objective of the Minister's statement last fall. It was to increase production of wood fibre by 40 per cent over the next decade or so, and that will have to be achieved mostly by forest regeneration.
I want to comment on the concern the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has about the question of native employment. My own constituency has, 1 think, the second largest Indian band member population in the Ontario region. There has been a very extensive program going on this past year under Section 38 in which $1,121 million has been spent under the Section 38 Job Creation Program on six reserves in my constituency which will be providing 2,702 work-weeks of employment. I think that there are six reserves in my constituency which have sawmills located on them and a number of sawmill operations which are close by.
This is not to say that there is not room for greater opportunity in native employment. Of course, there again the problem of shortage of fibre is faced. Many Indian bands have cut over their existing fibre, and so this Section 38 of the forestry program will provide an opportunity not only for improving these woodlot stands but likewise for planting of seedlings this

May 30, 1983
Supply
year. This program is a co-operative effort between the Canadian Forestry Service and the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission.
It seems to me that at the Forestry Conference in Thunder Bay, one of the most progressive arrangements that I heard spoken of was that one of the Indian bands had their own forestry management agreement with the Ontario Government and were developing and providing wood fibre for sawmills in the area. It seems to me that there should be an opportunity for that to happen in other areas where Indian bands do not have adequate fibre on their own reserve lands. These bands should have the opportunity to opt into those forestry management agreements which would allow them to operate the license and sell to the operator of the pulp and paper mill or sawmill in their area, unless, of course, they have their own sawmill or pulp operation. It seems to me that there is a real opportunity there.
The proposal to increase employment by 100,000 people, much of it in reforestation, obviously offers a real opportunity. That is not to say that many native people do not already work in pulp and paper and sawmill operations throughout many areas of northern Ontario, but as the Hon. Member has indicated, the unemployment rate on many reserves is much higher than it is off the reserves. So this clearly provides an opportunity that we must expand upon. On several reserves in my own constituency, though, I have seen that the problem is that the limits put on the reserves tend to have been cut over. There must greater reforestation for the long haul.
It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that these forest management agreements will have to provide for a number of things if we are to increase the long-term need of greater fibre for the forest products industry. The proposal of the Minister of Forest Resources and Development suggests that spending by Government and industry on reforestation should increase by $300 million to $650 million per year by 1987, that long-term agreements should contain forest management agreements between the private sector and the provincial Government involved, that there should be a provision for transfer of technology, that there should be a provision for intensive forestry and an increase in the input of the provincial Government and the private sector, and that there should clearly be a greater development of private woodlots.
I was interested to hear the announcement of the Special Recovery Capital Projects because I have mentioned the importance of the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie. That announcement, which was made a couple of weeks ago, in fact included provision for a $13 million expansion and upgrading of the Great Lakes Forest Research Laboratory which serves the Ontario region. It is interesting to note that likewise in other regions $22.5 million was allocated for a new laboratory in Fredricton, $14 million for expansion and upgrading of the facilities of the Pacific Forest Research Centre in Victoria, $10 million for expansion and upgrading of the Laurentian Forest Research Centre in Quebec, as well as $10.5 million contribution for the construction of a forest ranger school on the site of the Maritimes Forest Research Complex at Fredricton. This represents a very
significant commitment by the federal Government, a commitment of some $60 million to these major forestry facilities for research. The federal Government, of course, has a special responsibility in research.
The importance of the purchase of the CL-215 water bombers has been mentioned. That purchase is important not only to keep Canadair viable but it is important to Provinces like Ontario, and especially the northern Ontario region. Much of that activity is based in the City of Sault Ste. Marie and will play an important role in preserving our forests.
It is interesting to note that the Canadair water bomber agreement provides not only for the federal Government to purchase some 20 water bombers, but I believe that it provides for the Provinces to purchase 16 water bombers on a reciprocal basis. If the federal Government spends money on water bomber fleets, the Provinces will do likewise. Similarly, the production of those water bombers probably becomes more economically viable because the agreement offers the opportunity for construction of water bombers for the overseas market. I believe that the announcement indicated that some 20 additional water bombers would be allocated for that. We are looking at a pretty massive project for Canada. It is a project in which I have a special interest because the sub-contractor who is to paint those water bombers is in my constituency of Algoma in northern Ontario. Even though the contract will go to Canadair in Montreal, the spin-off benefits will affect other parts of the country, including that painting subcontract which will help an aerospace facility in northern Ontario.
I would just like to review the Government's role in the establishment of the nation-wide forest fire intelligence and information system which will provide fire control agencies with added water bombing capacity and the opportunity to develop fire management systems to increase the effectiveness of provincial forest fire control operations. This program to which the federal Government is contributing, is centred in Winnipeg and will be a co-operative effort. It is typical of the way that the federal Government is recognizing its responsibility nation-wide, not only in silviculture research but in forest fire prevention and the whole gamut of the forestry industry. The Government is meeting that challenge for the future because of the tremendous importance this industry holds for every Canadian and especially those of us in the resource producing areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Do Hon. Members have any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I think I just have enough time to say what I want to. The problem we are debating today is not new. I compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on the motion because he has brought to our attention once again the serious need for co-operation between the federal level of Government and the provincial level of Government.
May 30, 1983

The same cry was heard in 1925 when C. D. Howe addressed the Royal Canadian Institute saying:
Taking the Dominion as a whole, forestry is much in the same condition as that which Mark Twain once described with reference to the weather: 'Everybody talks about it and nobody does anything about it.'
I think that is why we are debating this Opposition motion today. Canadian forests are a facade. They look plentiful and nourished from the view of an airplane, but in reality they are an asset we are going to lose very quickly if we do not act now.
It is interesting that he was saying this in 1925. As the Hon.. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) keeps telling us, the longer he stays around the more things remain the same. The Government, which has been in power for a long time, really has not addressed this very serious national resource nor has it entered into co-operation with the Provinces to make sure that the total tax resource of the country is used wisely to enable the industry to recover from the position of being overharvested and undernourished.
We may ask why forestry is so important to us. Directly and indirectly it provides one out of every ten jobs in Canada; it provides jobs for 13 per cent of all people employed in manufacturing; it generates over $1 billion in tax revenue for the federal Government; it provides $1 billion in tax revenue for the provincial Governments; forest products exports total $9 billion and account for 18 per cent of all Canadian exports. This one industry contributes more to the federal economy than fishing, mining, fuels and agriculture combined.
Three hundred communities in this country depend on the health and well-being of our forest industries. Canada ranks first in the world in exports, second in forested area and third in forest products. Trees cover 44 per cent of Canada; 4.4 million square kilometres of which are in forest and half of this is harvestable. This is a very serious factor in our timber industry today. I agree with the forecasters who say that in the next 20 years, over 100,000 jobs will depend upon the initiatives we take today. The new Assistant Deputy Minister at the Canadian Forestry Service says that he believes that an immediate, massive and sustained reforestation program can avoid the imminent crisis in the forests. I should like to think that Members of all Parties in the House are prepared to assist him with the muscle, the energy and political pressure he needs to meet his objectives.
Forestry industry consultants, Ted Fellows, says that for at least the next 20 years we will not be able to develop our timber industry as fast as we could have if we had paid more attention to forestry 20 years ago or if we had heard the words of C. D. Howe back in 1925. We have to start immediately and plant like crazy with the best genetic and proved stock that we have. There are a lot of ifs, even if the industry is to start to take a more far-sighted view of the resource base.
It is interesting that we have harvested some 800,000 hectares and replanted only 200,000 hectares while 400,000 hectares have received no regeneration. British Columbia accounts for one third of the world's soft wood lumber exports. There is a world shortage of soft wood fibre. We have to put that into perspective and I hope I will be able to comment on it before I end my speech. About one half of every dollar earned
Supply
in British Columbia stems from forestry and accounts for 42 per cent of total manufactured shipments from that Province.
I will take a risk and say that some of my best friends are foresters. I have travelled the coast. I love the coast and I love the mountains and I love the wilds, but I have seen some terribly stupid things going on out there. I have seen crews of university students hired on special summer programs go out with skid-donkey engines to pull snags and clean streams to allow fish to get up the natural streams to the natural spawning areas. 1 have seen them working in the middle of a stream when suddenly a truck will drive up, take the crew out and leave the donkey engine there. The project is finished with logs still lying in the stream because there is no more money. This is happening everywhere.
Fishery inspectors patrolling the northern waters of British Columbia have sat and had a drink with me. They have told me about the stupidity of not being allowed to take a chainsaw into a stream to cut away a dead fall or a new fall that is interfering with the fish migration. It is in these areas that we seem to be so blind. We cut off budgets where it is terribly important, out in the fields, in the streams, in the area of wildlife, yet we waste and squander so much money here in advocacy advertising, in administration and bricks and mortar. We need planning, reforestation, streams opened up out in the field where the meaningful work is.
When people are put to such work in the summers they feel they have gained something, because they feel the magnitude and majesty of the outdoors. They appreciate the size and scope of the country and know that in their days at university they did something meaningful to earn their education. I should like to see a lot more money from the UIC and from the Department of Employment and Immigration redirected to forestries and fisheries to provide meaningful jobs, not false ones. I get so frustrated with our activities here, Mr. Speaker.
I want to come now to the point made by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that this Party was in Government for nine months in 1979 but did nothing. I know he will never have that experience so I will point the problem out to him. There is a bureaucratic pipeline, full of planning. The planning takes 42 stages-something gets into the pipeline and comes all the way through. Things in the pipeline normally have to flow through before you get a chance to implement something new. In the meantime you start your planning process and it starts to plug in behind the flow.
In 1978-79, the Government spent $196.1 million on the forestry sector of which $41 million went to the forest service-only $41 million-while $154.9 million was spent by other Departments. That shows the priority that existed with the Fiberal Government prior to 1979.
In 1979-80, the brief period when there was a change in Government, the objectives of the Department were stated in the Estimates as being to promote effective economic management and use of the forest resources of the nation. The objective was to improve the management and sustained economic utilization of the forest.

May 30, 1983
Supply
As a result of the planning and the work that went on in that short nine months in 1979-credit for which goes to the next Government, as is often the case-they get the credit or the blame-the objective in the Estimates was changed as a direct result of work done by our Government. The wording started in 1980-81, and went through to 1983-84, as a result of the change in Government. It was as follows:
To promote and advise on the preservation, enhancement, and wise use of forest resource and terrestrial environment for economic and social benefits; to provide information for policy and program development and co-ordination of federal activities relating to the forestry sector; to carry out research aimed at solving problems and capitalizing on opportunities in all aspects of forestry including forest management, protection, harvesting and utilization; to participate in the evaluation of environmental impacts on the forest resource of forestry practices, air pollutants and major developments; to assess the potential for using forests and trees for energy, chemicals and new products; to provide forestry services and advice to other federal agencies and to promote public awareness of the economic, ecological and social value of the nation's forests.
The Government which was in power for nine months in 1979 set out a whole new area of objectives and a whole new direction. Also, I believe that that Government can take full credit for creating the post of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Forestry and, I believe, in the selection and at least the recommendation of its present incumbent, a man who, I feel, deserves a lot of support from all of us here in the House. I am not going to accept the little jibes of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), that we did not do anything in that nine months in 1979. We laid some very solid foundation and framework for what could go on, except that it seems now to be stifled with a lack of resources.
I am also troubled, Mr. Speaker, that the Pacific Forest Research Centre has in this Estimate only $775,000 this year. As I have already reported in this speech, the Province is responsible for 33 per cent of the world soft wood lumber exports. There is something very wrong there. Perhaps the free enterprise spirit out in that Province does not require of this Government all the money which some of the other sectors of Canada do. I am not going to stand here and ask the Government to send us more money. Perhaps we do not need it, because 1 believe there are lots of little things which go on to prove that the initiative and innovation of man in small units is far more effective than large bureaucracies which shovel out in wasteful sums the taxpayers' energy and resources.
In the Estimates we have some $94 million forecast expenditures in forestry for 1982-83. Yet the Estimates for 1983-84 dropped by $20 million. Is that not interesting? I notice that contributions to provincial agencies and to persons for development initiatives undertaken under the General Development Agreements and Subsidiary Agreements for the purpose of economic and socio-economic adjustment has dropped from $75 million to $63 million. This does not do us very much good in British Columbia, but we do get out of that $94 million the sum of $50,000 for the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. The Council of Forest Industries is a very valuable organization in that it co-ordinates the activities of the industry in B.C. and communicates pretty well and effectively with the federal Government-I would say "all too well" with the
federal Government because it is part of that lobby group of industrialist leaders who arrived down here last week to try to put enough pressure on the Opposition Members to have them support Bill C-155, the Crow Bill. It is that kind of debt which associations like the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia pick up when they accept money from Governments to sustain their needs. They would be far better off if they kept their independence and their honesty in terms of political force by remaining independent; $50,000 is nothing to the members of COFI out in British Columbia. I would suggest that they do not have to join that type of delegation to twist our arms to submit to something which is totally wrong in principle before the full debate on the Bill is heard.
Grants from the federal Government can control grassroots agencies out in the country. I would warn all of them to be very careful about accepting grants of that nature because they do pick up that kind of leverage, which I believe destroys their true impact and potential which they have as responsible associations.
The Canadian Forestry Service in the 1982-83 Estimates receives $92.5 million. Let us look at how that is distributed. There is $63.8 million for administration of the Canadian Forestry Service. I just heard the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is just leaving the chair, talk about all the bricks and mortar which was going to be put into the Department of the Environment, but there is $5 million for capital expenditures and there is $23.7 million in grants and contributions. Administration is two and a half times what they are delivering out in the field where the trees are and where the fish are. There is something very wrong when we can build that type of top-heavy over-burden on anything as important as our forest industry. I notice also that of $346.8 million in grants and contributions, our Province of British Columbia picks up 14 per cent. That is the combination of provincial and federal contributions.
I am very proud to stand in the House and take part in this debate, being from British Columbia, because we are a Province which has done well. Although, I will stand now and criticize our own Province for the fact that in its forest management licences, it has set its inventory far too high. It has included inventory in the higher elevations on the mountains which are difficult to get to and which are causing flooding and water problems and which, generally, has caused an overharvest in the Province which we are having to pay for. However, there are some interesting things happening in British Columbia. I believe we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the world is short of fibre, short of soft wood fibre, and if we can get our act together and not accept the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that co-operative federalism is dead, if we can get back to a sense of co-operative federalism and have the federal Department of Environment work in coordination and co-operation with the Provinces, we can then start to replant, to give the generations of tomorrow some of the strength we are taking from them today in our overspending.
May 30, 1983

There is a tremendous opportunity which we have to serve the future generations by utilizing and making the federal Department of Environment go out in the field and be cooperative with the Provinces so that we can address the real issues of species research. The whole market is changing, Mr. Speaker. Out in British Columbia we have big sawmills collapsing. They will no longer work. The whole market is such now that as we go farther out from the tidal ports, we are moving into smaller more efficient sawmills. One of the greatest things we need now in our industry in British Columbia is a new type of saw. And we can do more of the manufacturing out in the hinterlands and cut down the transportation costs to market. We have a situation in the Okanagan and in the small forest areas now where we are fingerjoining small cut trees, and that is opening up a whole new vista for us.
I am pressured with time here, Mr. Speaker, and I would love to explain what is going on in some of the forest culture. Crews are now going out and trimming the branches off trees for three metres in height in order that down the road, 60 years away, there will be tall, knot-free trees which will have maximum market use in the future. I personally was involved in the research which made the breakthrough for cottonwood farming on the deltas of our rivers out in British Columbia. That was over 25 years or 30 years ago now. We can now start to see the harvest of these cottonwoods. It is now becoming one of the most important areas for manufacturers of fibre products, such as Scott Paper. They are now expanding what we started in a very small way. It is now being expanded to the major river deltas all up through the coast of British Columbia. We have not done that expecting great gobs of money from Ottawa. That original research all came from the private sector which hired people like me to work on those research projects in the field and to make them possible. This type of thing does not come from these bricks and mortar monuments we build here with all these millions of dollars. We must feed it out, give incentives and encouragement into the field. We must allow the Department of Environment and that new ADM to start co-operating with the industry through the Provinces and see if we cannot get a spirit of well-being and growth going in this very important part of our lives.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on May 20,
1983, I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) as follows:
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
Adjournment Debate
Blind River. However, last summer it exempted a large sale of uranium concentrate from being upgraded in Canada-
I put that question to the Minister because last summer the Government's uranium review panel exempted from further processing in Canada some 1.8 million kilograms of uranium oxide. This decision resulted in the loss of some $10 million in foreign exchange and cost the country some 150 person years of work. All this at a time when we have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
My own personal concern is that at the present time in the town of Blind River in my constituency a uranium trioxide refinery is being built at a cost of $130 million. At the same time a uranium hexachloride upgrading facility is being built in Port Hope. We have been trying for a long time to achieve further processing of our natural resources in this country. Yet this large sale of uranium to the United States from Saskatchewan was exempt from further upgrading in Canada.
I understand this came about mostly because the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation put pressure on the Government, saying if it did not exempt this from further processing then the company would lose the sale. Mr. Speaker, that is hard to believe. I understand this uranium was sold for around $17 a pound. Yet Australia will not allow uranium to be sold for less than $35 a pound. So it is just hard to believe that if the federal Government had forced this uranium to be processed in Canada the sale would have been lost.
Even if the odd sale is lost, it seems to me that we should maintain the principle of continuing to process our own uranium. We are going to a lot of trouble and expense to create this processing capacity in Canada and we should not be knuckling under to the pressure of provincial Governments. It is my understanding that they are not only pressuring the federal Government, they are trying to coach other producers in how to avoid further upgrading in this country.
It can be clearly seen how committed the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation is to further processing of our natural resources in this country. I hope the Government will not allow future sales of uranium to leave the country without further upgrading and processing taking place here. Clearly, we do not want go back to being hewers of wood and drawers of water. We want to get the value added to our natural resources. We want to create and keep the jobs in this country.
I hope the Hon. Member responding to my representations today will make a clear statement that uranium will not be exported from this country without further upgrading. We have very efficient facilities for upgrading. We can do it as cheaply as any other country in the world. The Government should reaffirm its policy statement so that everyone will know that it is the policy of the Government of Canada that we carry out upgrading and further refining of our uranium resources in Canada.

May 30, 1983
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should say at the outset that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has raised this issue on previous occasions, both in committee and in the House. Indeed, he has raised it in his discussions with the Minister and myself as well. I can appreciate his rightful concern.
We are all familiar with the problems in our uranium and nuclear industries. One common element of these problems is that we tend to be working toward conflicting goals. In the case of uranium, we are on the one hand expanding our uranium mining industry, while on the other hand we have placed certain conditions on exports which encourage development of our uranium refinery and conversion businesses. The conversion business presupposes the existence of uranium export contracts. Outright insistence on further processing could lose both the immediate uranium business and the sale of conversion services.
The Canadian Government has always been sensitive to the problems facing the uranium industry. The processing problem was addressed by the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in early 1974 when he stated:
Uranium will be required to be exported in the most advanced form possible in Canada unless specific exemption is granted by the control agencies.
This position was reaffirmed in the September, 1974, statement on Canadian uranium policy.
The most advanced form presently possible for essentially all of Canada's uranium exports is uranium hexafloride, LiF*in6, and this is likely to be the case for some years. The basic further processing issue is the degree to which Canada should insist on conversion of uranium to UF*in6 before export. If it does so, there is a risk of lost sales. If it does not, it puts at risk its investment in Eldorado's new refining and conversion facilities. It could also compromise its policy of industrial development based on natural resources.
It may be that the exemption issue will not affect a sufficiently large portion of Canada's substantial uranium exports to threaten the further processing policy. However, exemptions could be considered pragmatically on a case by case basis.
From 1973 to 1979, uranium was perceived to be relatively scarce and it was not difficult for Canada to obtain compliance from uranium customers in respect of its further processing policy. The present situation is very different. There is considerable overcapacity and some uranium customers have already contracted for their conversion services.
Canadian uranium producers are finding that the market is soft and that sales prospects are difficult to find and hotly contested. The condition of further processing in Canada is considered onerous by some customers, even if it is imposed only when there is a capacity available and when the Canadian services are competitive. Customers want complete freedom to to shop around for conversion services in a buyers' market.
However, the Canadian Government recognizes the importance of developing its own uranium and conversion business
and does not freely grant exemptions from its further processing policy. The exemptions which have been granted have been made only after careful consideration by Ministers of the facts surrounding the sale.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) stated in the House on May 20, that the Government of Canada wants to maximize refinery in Canada, but not at the cost of losing uranium sales.


FINANCE-INCOME SECURITY INVESTMENT PLAN. (B) POTENTIAL OF SMALL BUSINESSES TO CREATE JOBS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on April 27 last, I raised a question in the House with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) concerning the Income Security Investment Plan filed with the budget. At the outset let me say that we on this side of the House are reasonably happy with the Income Security Investment Plan. We see nothing really dangerous about it. Indeed, the spirit of allowing those who invest in securities to shelter themselves from the effects of inflation, which is really the granddaddy of the production of all capital gains in this country, is a proper activity. Indeed, we would like to see, by and large, capital gains taxes removed from all business investment. However, what we have here is a plan which is very limited in its scope.
I raise the question because the plan is a help to those who are in large businesses which finance in the stock market, but it is of no help whatsoever to small or medium-sized businesses, to family owned businesses or closely held businesses. Most businesses in this country, even large businesses, are not listed on the stock market, nor can they be. This is not because they are relatively closely held. The families and individuals owning the businesses cannot easily accept the problem of turning their businesses into public corporations. These are they very businesses which are dynamic, growing and creating most of the jobs in the country.
The budget we faced on April 19 last was supposed to attack the problem of unemployment. Massive numbers of Canadians are unemployed. The Minister and the Government are looking presumably to the private sector to be the engine of growth, the engine of the supply of jobs. Frankly, the capital gains tax seriously hurts business in terms of encouraging people to invest and to create new opportunity, because with a capital gains tax facing an investor, the zing, the hope of profit, the smell of a go-ahead economy, is to a large extent taken away.


Mr. Fisher:: Nonsense.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says "nonsense." I say to Your Honour that what we must do is encourage investment, investment by individuals of all kinds. To wind up with a system which helps only the rich, large corporations which happen to be listed on the stock market, and then only in a very bureaucratic fashion, is just not good enough. If the
May 30, 1983

Government really intended to do something to create jobs, if it really intended to make business investment the kind of thing that was there for the engines of growth about which the Government speaks, then it would have come forward with a plan much broader and much more comprehensive in terms of business investment and the way inflation affects that investment. It has not.
These questions were asked of the Minister of State for Finance. The House should receive an apology from the Government for this Minister. He really does not understand the budget nor the Income Investment Security Plan. His answers can be read in Hansard as reported at page 24897. He went on to speak of the Special Recovery Tax and the $4.8 billion which is to somehow stimulate the economy. But the questions were directly with respect to this investment plan. It is too bad the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) is not more competent. I am hoping we will receive a good response from the Parliamentary Secretary who is certainly far more competent in financial matters than his Minister.
With that aside, it is important that we have a response from the Government to encouraging investment in business, something much more comprehensive than this plan which in some senses is only applicable to people who trade stock rapidly on the stock market. That was the suggestion of Lyman Maclnnis, President of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. We should have a plan that does not require those who invest in the shares of any business to pay taxes on inflationary gains, or that allows them to deduct losses if there is a tax against a gain.
The present system of capital gains tax is really a tax on inflation. Most of the capital gains on which the Government has collected tax were gains that resulted from inflation. When it comes to business investment, particularly, it is totally improper that that type of gain should be taxed; indeed, we would be far better off in terms of employment and in terms of growth if we did not tax those gains at all.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, let us put the income investment security plan into its proper context. Let us start with the postbudget analysis in Maclean's magazine wherein it was indicated that business was the big winner in the budget. Following the applause from Maclean's, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its newsletter in May indicated:
Canadian Chamber reacts favourably to recent federal budget.
It went on to indicate:
With this in mind, it applauded the Minister for recognizing the important role of the small business sector by introducing a number of special tax and other measures that may help to alleviate certain elements of the difficult financial situation faced by small business.
That is a very strong statement which indicates to us that the small business sector, the sector which is not traded on the stock market, has reacted well to the budget as a total package. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce told us that it submitted 30 ideas, of which 24 were approved in whole or in part. The Chamber indicated that it agreed with the budget and viewed it as a win on behalf of small business. It also indicated
Adjournment Debate
that the budget would create investment, business expansion and new jobs.
There are three important tax measures in addition to the ISIP which the Hon. Member mentioned. There is the share purchase tax credit which was worth $240 million in business stimulus. There is the investment tax credit, with special new rules to enrich new investment, and those rules are even better for small business than they are for big business. There are the carryback and carryforward provisions on losses that allow people to obtain refunds on their taxes over the past three years or the next seven years to alleviate loss. These things will let small businesses obtain equity financing, get off debt and get themselves into a much better cash flow situation.
When we set up ISIP we listened to the Lortie Commission and to pre-budget consultations. In fact it was all a breakthrough in effective pre-budget co-operation. Perhaps it is because of that that I can close with a direct quote from the Investment Dealers' Association which indicated that the budget was "a carefully thought-out program to help the private sector in the recovery". I think ISIP has to be put into context, and that small business measures in the budget are one of our strongest points.


MINES AND MINING-CLOSING OF SHERRITT GORDON MINE AT LYNN LAKE, MAN. (B) REQUEST THAT TAX WRITE-OFF PROVISIONS BE CHANGED
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make further comments to those I made in the House of Commons regarding the proposed closing by Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited of its Fox Lake mine operation in the area of Lynn Lake, Manitoba. One of the questions I asked in the House at that time was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I referred to the fact that tax deductions allowed to companies for exploration are actually preventing exploration from taking place in the Lynn Lake area. I asked a supplementary question which was answered by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I referred to the NEED program and the application which had been put forward by the company.
I wish to explain that the problem facing the residents of Lynn Lake, Manitoba is simply that the company will be closing its present mine in 1985 or 1986. As a short-term project it re-filed a NEED application with the Government on May 11, 1983, as the first application did not meet the criteria. In its request, the company asked for approximately $2.6 million of which Sherritt will pay $1,138,625. The federal Government is being asked for $1,011,575 and the provincial Government $547,200. The Manitoba provincial Government has indicated its support for the second NEED application. That is a good sign. I encourage the federal Government to give this application favourable consideration. It is recognized by the residents of my community that the first application did not meet the criteria of the program. I am glad that, after

May 30. 1983
Adjournment Debate
some consultations, the company has put forward what 1 believe to be an acceptable application.
In the few minutes available to me, I want to talk about the other matter I raised in my question to the Prime Minister. I recognize that in certain circumstances, perhaps not in all, the provisions that allow a corporation to write off either past or future profits against certain exploration costs do not necessarily encourage exploration. I will give the example of the operation of Sherritt Gordon in the Lynn Lake, area.
In that case, Sherritt Gordon does not have the money at this time for exploration. It has not been able to do much exploration in this area over the last few years. As a result, it has not been able to find a new ore body for its present copper-zinc operation in that area. The provincial Government has offered to come in on a joint venture whereby it would receive some equity control of that operation in return for doing exploration in that area. It is the same kind of negotiating for a contract that would exist between Sherritt and any other private enterprise operation.
The reason the company has given for not accepting the offer of the provincial Government, an offer which could save jobs and businesses in the town of Lynn Lake, is that the federal tax provisions for exploration are so good for private enterprise, that sometime in the future it may get a better deal if it forms a partnership with another private enterprise organization.
At the present time the provincial Government is offering to make a deal to carry out the exploration on the properties presently under the supervision of Sherritt Gordon, just as the provincial Government is doing the majority of the exploration in the area around Lynn Lake that is not directly under the control of the company. The company is sitting on the best leases, not because of any fault of its own, Mr. Speaker, but because at the present time it cannot afford to undertake the exploration, and because the federal Government's tax breaks, write-offs, depreciation and all the rest are so good that it does not want to give them up at the present time.
What 1 would ask of the federal Government is to do one of two things. It should make the Province eligible for a similar type of tax credit on the investment it puts into that area, therefore encouraging exploration at this time. As I stated earlier, the Province is willing to do this. It is only by exploration at this time that jobs in the Lynn Lake area will be saved. If that is not acceptable to the Government, then 1 would ask the Government to review its present tax write-off schemes for exploration, realizing that in this particular case those provisions are actually preventing exploration and may cause the death of a town, the loss of its businesses and the loss of the homes of the residents of that community.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the concerns raised by the Hon. Member, in particular his last two or three sentences in which he requested that certain tax write-off provisions be changed. I have certain information before me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Hon. Member. Perhaps I could read information into the record and, if he believes it to be incorrect, perhaps we could discuss the matter further.
I am of the view that senior officials of Energy, Mines and Resources have checked with a senior official of Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited as to why the company would not accept money from the Province of Manitoba because of the federal Government's tax write-off procedures. The senior officials stated that no money has been offered to the company by the Manitoba Government. He also stated that an application by Sherritt Gordon for a grant under the NEED Program for further exploration of a gold deposit near Lynn Lake is being considered by the Manitoba and federal Governments and that taxation policies of the federal Government have not at any time entered into this matter.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act have always provided considerable stimulation with respect to mining exploration. In addition, most of the Provinces follow the lead of the Government of Canada in this regard. For example, for several years now exploration expenditures have been deductible from any income, to the extent of that income. Since late 1978, mining exploration expenditures have included pre-production mine development expenditures, also deductible from any income.
In the budget of April 19 an additional measure was provided to stimulate mine exploration. As may be known, mining exploration earns depletion at a rate of $1 of depletion for each $3 of expenditure. Prior to the budget the earned depletion could only be deducted from resource income. This made it difficult at times for various interests participating in mining exploration ventures to claim the benefit. This was especially true for individuals and non-resource companies. The budget provided that the depletion earned after April 19 on exploration costs can also be deducted from any income for federal income tax purposes. As most of the Provinces will also recognize this incentive, the after-tax cost of the high risk mining exploration activity is significantly lowered for investors.
In view of the Government's recent commitment to further encourage mining exploration, it would not seem likely to me that the tax incentives for exploration would detract from the Sherritt Gordon application under the NEED grant, as the Hon. Member mentioned.
I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that most of those facts were taken from the Income Tax Act and deal with definitions which are contained in the definitions section. If the
May 30, 1983

Hon. Member wants further information, I would be happy to provide it for him.	Adjournment Debate this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,	At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 31, 1983