1984-05-17

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for abandoning its commitment to alleviate regional economic disparities and thereby encouraging continued economic inequality between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country through a policy of gutting the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, slashing investment in regional development, and downgrading, for political purposes, federal-provincial development agreements.
He said: Mr. Speaker, few Opposition motions on any subject are as important as the one we are debating today. The motion strikes at the very heart of what Canada is supposed to be all about, namely a land of opportunity from coast to coast, from sea to sea.
The country's wealth is shared unequally from one region to another and from one province to another. Indeed, national myth notwithstanding, the difference in economic opportunity between residents of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland on the one hand, and those of Ontario and Alberta on the other, for example, is analogous to the economic disparities between blacks and whites in the United States. It is as though we in the have-not parts of Canada were living in a separate country altogether from the land in which the wealthy provinces of Canada find themselves. Yet the current government has abandoned any commitment it had to alleviating regional economic disparity in Canada.
After 16 years in office, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) prepares to take his leave knowing, as he must, that regional disparities have not improved a whit in the time that he has been in office. The irony is that in his first election campaign in 1968, only days after becoming Leader of his Party, the Prime Minister made the elimination of regional economic disparity his major commitment and his only major specific promise. How the hopes and expectations of Atlantic Canadians were raised by him in that campaign!
Those sentiments were raised still higher when in 1969 the Government heralded the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. To be fair, and I want to be fair, I believe sincerely that at the time the Prime Minister actually was committed to the high-sounding objectives of the
Throne Speech of the day in which the proposal for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was made. However, like the North-South dialogue and now his peace initiative, the regional disparity issue was but a fad for him, something to entertain his mind until the next political fashion came along.
Certainly the record of the Government from the time of the establishment of DREE to the present has not been one of relatively stronger economic growth in Atlantic Canada. Rather, it has been one of continued economic disparity between the region and the rest of the country. When DREE was established in 1969, the earned income per person-personal income excluding government transfer payments like unemployment insurance-was $1,738 in the Atlantic Provinces. For the rest of Canada, the corresponding figure was $2,747. The personal income of people living in the Atlantic Provinces was only 63.3 per cent of the personal income of those living in the rest of Canada. In 1982, the last year for which data are available, the per capita earned income in the region was $7,312 compared to $11,455 for the rest of Canada, making a ratio of 63.8 per cent. There was an improvement of only one-half of 1 per cent in 13 years.
Similarly, in 1968, the first year of the Prime Minister's administration, there were 38,000 people unemployed in the Atlantic region and 320,000 people unemployed in the rest of Canada. The number of jobless in the region constituted 11.9 per cent of the number of jobless in the rest of Canada. In April, 1984, with 143,000 people unemployed in Atlantic Canada, the regional jobless figure is now 11.4 per cent of that of the rest of Canada. The disparity has narrowed, Mr. Speaker, only one-half of 1 per cent in 16 years. Indeed, the number of jobs in Atlantic Canada relative to the rest of the Canadian labour force has actually shrunk and not increased since the Prime Minister first took office. It has gone down from 8.5 per cent to 7.9 per cent.
Only 6 per cent of the jobs created in Canada in the last 16 years have been created in the Atlantic region. Yet the region contains over 9 per cent of the country's population. In 1968 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 6 per cent in the Atlantic region compared to 3.9 per cent in the rest of Canada. In April, 1984 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 15.1 per cent in contrast with the figure of 11 per cent for the rest of Canada. The ratio is exactly the same now as it was 16 years ago-one and a half to one, to the disadvantage of the Atlantic Provinces.
It is not at all difficult to identify what went wrong with the Government's regional development policies. There were two

May 17, 1984
Supply
main problems with those policies. The first problem was a failure of administration and the second was a lack of continued commitment to funding and programming. Programs were frequently ill-conceived. In my Province of Prince Edward Island, for example, DREE often supported industries that were doomed to failure from the beginning because they did not relate to the indigenous resources of the province or to the competitive advantages of the Island. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is realistic to think that a province like Prince Edward Island with a population of only 125,000 people, a province that is situated a thousand miles away from any major metropolitan market, could ever sustain an industry which manufactured skis? DREE thought so but the marketplace did not. The result was calamity for both the company in question and for the workers whose jobs and dreams were destroyed.
The record of DREE throughout the Atlantic region is replete with such examples of departmental ineptitude. In other instances, genuinely worth-while projects initiated by DREE were undermined by other departments of the federal Government. It was not that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing; it was that the left hand was chopping the right hand off at the wrist. For example, in the City of Charlottetown, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion invested something like $9 million for the redevelopment of the waterfront. It was one of the most innovative efforts in all of North America. The anchor of that ambitious project, that ambitious complex of public and private facilities and services, was to be the relocated headquarters for the national Department of Veterans Affairs. It was to be relocated on Queen Street on the city's waterfront itself. However, because of sheer bureaucratic bungling, officials of the Department of Public Works pulled the rug out from under its sister Department of Regional Economic Expansion. DPW did so by wrenching the DVA headquarters from DREE's waterfront project in favour of a city-core location which was isolated from anything in which the federal Government had a direct interest. In one fell swoop, one federal department risked the total collapse-certainly a major collapse-of the multimillion dollar efforts of another department.
Fortunately, the waterfront project, of which I have spoken, was given a much needed boost by the erection of a multimillion dollar convention centre on the spot where DVA was to be located. That outcome was made possible only by a last-minute federal-provincial funding arrangement. Meanwhile, the waterfront project was seriously set back and, to make matters worse, the federal Government now stands to lose a million dollar law suit to the developers associated with the original DVA waterfront site.
I mention that example because I think it graphically illustrates what went wrong with DREE as administered by this Government. Just as DREE programs were plagued by interdepartmental warfare within the Government, so also were they undermined by the failure of the federal Government to consult with the very governments most affected by those
programs. The change in the DVA location from the Charlottetown waterfront to the city centre was made against strong representations, not only by the Province of P.E.I., but also by the city itself, not to mention local public opinion. The same type of insensitivity to provincial and local priorities was characteristic of DREE-related programs throughout the region-not just in Prince Edward Island but in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as well.
The second major problem with DREE was the lack of sustained funding and program support. There can be no doubt that, following an initial flurry of federal Government investment, regional economic expansion payments to the Atlantic provinces soon dropped steadily, to the point at which they all but ceased with the abolition of the department in 1982. In 1971, two years after the establishment of DREE, regional economic expansion payments to the provinces amounted to $473 million in 1982 dollar terms. Such payments remained around that level until 1979. From then on, support plummeted from $485 million in 1979 to $350 million in 1982. That represents a 41 per cent drop in support in four years.
What was even worse for the Atlantic provinces than the over-all decline in DREE funding was the region's declining share of the total. Originally DREE assistance was restricted to areas of Canada whose unemployment levels were constantly high, whose industrial base was low and whose hopes for improvement were otherwise remote. DREE money was intended to assist those areas in industrial development, the provision of essential services and in job retraining. However, Mr. Speaker, for purely electoral purposes this Government watered down eligibility criteria until almost every part of the entire country qualified for so-called regional development aid. Provinces like Prince Edward Island found themselves competing with parts of even wealthy Ontario for a share of the funds. As more and more communities from one end of the country to the other became eligible, we in the Atlantic Provinces had to scramble for our share of the pie. Given that the pie was originally intended for us, the outcome was nothing less than scandalous.
When DREE was established in 1968, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces received over half the total money expended by that department across Canada. When it was abolished in 1982, that proportion was down to less than a third. Not only was the pie smaller, but our piece of the pie was smaller yet.
The truth is, Sir, as the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance concluded after examining regional disparities in 1982, the Government has turned its back on the goal of regional disparity. It was more interested in courting electoral support in vote-rich Ontario and other major centres than in honouring its commitment to assist the have-not provinces to achieve some degree of self-sufficiency. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Government saw DREE as an obstacle to its re-election chances, because the provinces seemed to be getting credit for the expenditure of federal dollars, and none of the provinces was Liberal.
May 17, 1984

In Prince Edward Island, for example, the federal Government scrapped many established federal-provincial cost-shared programs in favour of direct delivery of federal services, often totally excluding the province from policy input. The result has been to render previously robust provincial departments of government-notably fisheries, agriculture and energy, and others which could be mentioned-mere shadows of their former selves, with attendant Public Service lay-offs and local service cutbacks. Even more significant, Mr. Speaker, the direct delivery approach has denied federal Government programs the local participation so essential to effective implementation.
With DREE folded into the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion as of 1982, and thereby effectively abolished, the Atlantic region has lost the one federal department, with all its faults, to which it could turn as a friend at court. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, in any competition between the twin but conflicting goals of the new department, national industrial objectives will win over regional development objectives ten times out of ten, at the expense of the Atlantic region.
The federal department has made an orphan of the Atlantic Provinces, leaving us increasingly to our own devices to survive. Not only has it abolished DREE and abandoned formal regional development programs of the DREE type, but it has also slashed support through broad fiscal and other programs. From 1977 to 1983, federal transfers to other levels of government have steadily gone down as a percentage of total federal expenditures, even excluding public debt considerations. Federal changes to Established Programs Financing for health care and post-secondary education has cost the Atlantic Provinces $90 million a year in lost revenue. Apart from those changes, the application of the Government's six and five program to the post-secondary education component of EPF in 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 will cost the region a further $32 million over those two years.
In such areas as transportation, so vital a part of the economic base of the region, the federal Government has left us high and dry, alone to fend for ourselves. In 1968 the Government subsidy under the Maritime Freight Rates Act was, in 1982 dollars, $57 million. In 1982 it had shrunk to a paltry $11 million, a drop of 81 per cent during the 16-year period in which the current Prime Minister was in office.
Sir, no part of Canada depends more on vital transportation links with the rest of Canada than does P.E.I. We have suffered, however, a steady loss of passenger freight and parcel express services, and railcar and railline repair and maintenance capacity. Having entered Confederation to save our railway, we see the federal Government dismantling it before our very eyes. Although the island is grateful for federal help towards such major projects as the Atlantic Regional Veterinary College and the Prince Edward Hilton Convention Centre, it is once again the classic story of the Government giving with one hand while taking with the other.
Supply
Sir, we in the Atlantic region are a proud, hard-working people, a people determined to be self-sufficient again. We were once self-sufficient. Before Confederation our region was actually quite prosperous. That is in fact why we were one of the first parts of Canada to become populated and settled. Successive central Canada-dominated federal Governments, however, have adopted policies undermining economic diversification in the Atlantic region and also in the west. This has weakened our economic strength and our morale. The region, once highly industrialized by the standards of the day, has now been reduced to producing staples. The production of those staples, for example potatoes in Prince Edward Island, does generate jobs, I grant you that. Much of the income, however, is then simply spent in central Canadian markets, mostly for manufactured goods. The same happens with federal transfer payments to provincial governments and individuals alike. In the Atlantic Provinces the money simply gets recycled back into the central Canadian economy.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that such regional servitude is exclusively the result of either accident or neglect. One cannot overlook the fact that it has served the interests of central Canada-and I am fond of central Canada-to have the Atlantic Provinces as a ready market for their manufactured goods rather than engage in manufacturing themselves. National policies like protective tariffs have consistently favoured Quebec and Ontario, the very provinces whose votes have enabled the Liberal Party of Canada to govern the country for most of this century.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a truly federal state, one that recognizes the enormous potential of the Atlantic region both to be self-sufficient and to contribute to the total weatlh of Canada. However, that will only come, Sir, with a new team of Canadians in charge of affairs here in Ottawa.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A period is now provided for questions or comments.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Hon. Member correctly, he mentioned the DVA building was to go on the waterfront. It was then moved downtown and they were lucky to get the convention centre on the waterfront. I remember discussing this move at length with the late Hon. Dan MacDonald prior to the move. I recall his mentioning the waterfront versus the downtown location. Is the Hon. Member really saying at this stage that he would prefer to have DVA on the waterfront and the convention centre downtown? Is it really better to have a department downtown in a business section, or is it better to have the convention centre downtown? Does he disagree with the DVA being located where it is located at present?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the consideration of the comparative locations of the two projects in question, the national headquarters for the Department of Veterans Affairs on the one hand, and the Prince Edward Hilton Convention Centre on the other, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that one

May 17, 1984
Supply
department of government was favouring one location and another department was favouring another. They were working at cross purposes to the point where a multimillion dollar redevelopment project for the Charlottetown waterfront was being undermined by the Department of Public Works and a sister department, namely that of Regional Economic Expansion, had already invested millions and millions of dollars into the Charlottetown waterfront project.
In my speech I was making the point that it is terribly important for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing and to co-operate with one another. Time and again in departments of the federal Government we have seen one department doing one thing and another department doing something entirely different. They work at cross purposes to each other. I used the DVA location as an illustration of the point in question. We need harmony between departments within the same government and between federal and provincial governments. During the 16 years in which the Prime Minister has been in office, we have had discord rather than harmony, confrontation rather than co-operation. I think that is at the very heart of the problem with regional development policies in the country.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions if I have time. Where does the Hon. Member stand on the free trade issue? If we move toward freer trade with the United States and other countries, how will that affect Atlantic Canada?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think a bit of history is in order here. When Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces were colonies, in their hey-day they had a good deal of what was analogous to free trade, largely between themselves and what is now the northeastern tier states to the south. When national tariff policies in Canada were devised under the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, and by every successive federal Government, the trade was artificially rerouted from north-south, as far as the Atlantic region was concerned, to east-west.
That is one of the prices that the Atlantic region has been prepared to pay to be part of the Canadian family. However, if we are to pay that price we must also get some compensatory advantages, for example, through freight rate policies. Instead, freight rate policies, which have been so important to trade, have gutted the advantages we once enjoyed. There are other examples of successive Canadian governments, mostly of a Liberal stripe, undermining our efforts to enhance our trade relations, not just with other countries, but even with other jurisdictions within Canada.
I myself am not a free trader, although I think there are some areas in which we can relax tariff and non-tariff barriers alike. However, 1 think that if we in the Atlantic region are going to pay the price of high tariffs in the country, there should be some corresponding advantages and those advantages have been in short supply, Sir.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a further general question. It seems to me that if
there is one Party in the House which is committed to survival of the fittest, to what is called social Darwinism, it would be the Conservative Party. It seems to me that Party would be the least committed to egalitarianism. How does the Member square that philosophy of modern conservatism with a policy of making special provision for the Atlantic region rather than abandoning it to fend for itself, as is traditional conservative policy? That is what modern conservatism is.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is totally erroneous.


Mr. Crosbie:: Moronic.


Thomas Michael McMillan: No member of this caucus or of the Progressive Conservative Party who could rightly call himself a Conservative in the country has advocated or ever fought for social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest among individuals, governments, or for that matter countries. I am proud to be associated with the record of Sir John A. Macdonald who did not hesitate to use the instruments of the state for the advantage of society as a whole, sometimes against the interests of the individual. 1 am proud to be associated with the record of Sir Robert Borden and Arthur Neighen, who forged some of the nation-building links which were inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald himself through the creation of the CNR. That was no lily-livered approach to stateism, Sir. I am proud to be associated with the record of John Diefenbaker who, in some ways, was the father of modern medicare through specific initiatives that he took.
There are other examples which could be cited at the provincial level. These include Leslie Frost, John Robarts and William Davis in Ontario. Look at the record of Richard Hatfield in New Brunswick. Has the Province of New Brunswick ever hesitated, in modern times, to use the instruments of the state for the advantage of society as a whole, sometimes against, perforce, the interests of the individual when the two were in conflict? I could cite similar parallels with the record of the province of which I am a resident.
The Progressive Conservative Party has a proud tradition of compassion and sensitivity to the welfare, the problems and the aspirations of individuals and provinces alike. For the Hon. Member to stand and ask the kind of question which he has asked reveals only that he does not know the history of the Conservative Party and, what is worse, does not know the history of Canada, either at the federal or provincial level.


John Carnell Crosbie: He knows nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? The House will now proceed to debate.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoyed that expose on Conservative philosophy. I have always known that Conservatives really cannot afford to believe in the survival of the fittest. If they did, of course, they would disappear.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are having a job to survive.
May 17, 1984


Donald James Johnston: I saw the Eton. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) squirming in his seat at the description of conservatism given by the Eton. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). I must say that it is appropriate and rather ironic that the Member for Hillsborough would lead off a debate criticizing the federal Government with respect to its regional economic initiatives. I am surprised, in fact, that he has been able to make some of those tongue-in-cheek comments about the federal Government's participation in Prince Edward Island without blushing. Perhaps he will blush at some of the items which I will bring to his attention.
Only a few short days ago the sod turning for the veterinary college took place in the riding of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough. That is one of the most significant of the special recovery projects and it has been debated by the maritime Premiers for some years as to location. The cost of the project is $18.5 million.
He reminded us of the tremendous contribution which the Government has made through its decentralization proposals. One of the most significant of the decentralization moves has been the transfer of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would say that of all the decentralization projects, with regard to the impact which they may have had on a particular community as that particular move to Prince Edward Island.
It is true that the Hon. Member has criticized the departments of the Government over the debate as to location. Surely that is a rather curious way of trying to undermine the validity of the efforts of the federal Government with respect to economic development on the Island itself. In fact, Prince Edward Island has benefited very substantially over the years from the initiatives of the Government.
[DOT] ('140)
I should point out to the Hon. Member when he starts citing figures that I am currently at the point of signing an economic and regional development agreement, which is one of the new series of agreements, with Premier Lee of Prince Edward Island. Premier Lee knows and the Hon. Member for Hillsborough knows that that agreement will maintain the historic funding levels from the regional fund with respect to Prince Edward Island. I will continue in a moment to describe the new arrangements and why they are in fact substantially better than the arrangements which existed in the past.
However, with respect to the regional fund itself which still exists, Prince Edward Island continues to have its fair share. I should also point out for the benefit of Members in the House something else which they probably know. When any of these subsidiary agreements are entered into under a general development agreement as in the past or by economic and regional development agreements in the future, it is clear that the cash flow tends to rise slowly at the outset, peak with respect to particular projects or agreements and then decline. Any decline in spending in any of the regions of Canada-I might say the pattern is consistent-is simply a natural result of the flow of funds with respect to projects and programs
Supply
undertaken according to these subsidiary agreements. Clearly this will vary from agreement to agreement but it is transparently misrepresentative of the funding under a program to say that it has declined in the last several years, because of course it has declined in the last several years. The fact is that for all intents and purposes there should be no money spent at all toward the end of an agreement because the program is one that has a definite period within which it is intended to operate.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear here today to say a few words about economic and regional development. As the Hon. Member himself admitted, it is an area to which this Government has made a very strong commitment and we continue to have an even stronger commitment today. That is the reason for some of the reorganizations that have taken place and with which I will deal in a few moments.
A number of my colleagues here today will be following up with more specifics in some specific areas of funding.


John Carnell Crosbie: Specificity.


Donald James Johnston: 1 see that the Hon. Member from St. John's is looking over here.


John Carnell Crosbie: St. John's West.


Donald James Johnston: He is another obvious beneficiary of the economic and regional development programs of the federal Government. He knows full well the impact that they have had in his province.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just wait until 1 get my chance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Two third placers.


Donald James Johnston: I think the Hon. Member for Hillsborough was referring to a new team. Surely a new team would not include the member from St. John's. He must be referring to some other new team and I will not go into that now.
The fact is that the whole issue of economic and regional development has received priority attention from the Government and continues to receive priority attention. That is why, as I mentioned a moment ago, the Government has taken significant steps to strengthen that commitment. I will outline a few of the measures.
The Hon. Member made reference to some historical evolution and pattern of development in this country. 1 suppose that it is true that Canada has been created against compelling economic logic, namely that it should have developed on a north-south rather than east-west basis as it has. 1 suppose as well that a triumph of Canadian history has been our ability to tie together, across this great, vast land, areas of such differing regional and economic opportunites and strength.
Of course, that has also developed over the years what the Hon. Member referred to obliquely as the so-called heartland-hinterland syndrome. The historical thrust of the past several decades has been to recognize this phenomenon and seek a solution to it. The creation of the Department of Regional

May 17, 1984
Supply
Economic Expansion by the Prime Minister's Government in the late 1960s I suggest was a daring, creative and innovative way of attacking that very issue.
What has DREE done? In my judgment, notwithstanding some of these rather silly criticisms about the location of buildings and so on, it really has been an outstanding success. That has been said to me time and time again by Members of Parliament from the Atlantic region. DREE undertook to put necessary infrastructure in place and that has been done.
Let me cite a few examples of what DREE has accomplished in the Atlantic Provinces. For example, in New Brunswick, the Market Square project virtually transformed the face of Saint John. The Village Acadian is the centrepiece of a growing tourism industry in northeastern New Brunswick. Silviculture infrastructure, such as tree nurseries, greenhouses and seed collection centres, has established the most intense forest management program of any province.
The member for St. John's might be interested to know and in fact knows very well that in Newfoundland a network of industrial parts has been established that expanded the industrial or commercial base of St. John's, Grand Falls, Car-bonear, Corner Brook, Gander and Wabush. As well, there is a second industrial park for Corner Brook and industrial malls and parks in Port aux Basques, Pasadena, Windsor and Gander.
There are waterfront developments in Nova Scotia, such as the kind the Hon. Member mentioned in his own province, both in Halifax and Dartmouth. The Hon. Member from Halifax was here a moment ago. He is very familiar with and probably very proud of that particular program.
Coal reserves in Cape Breton were proven up as a result of these DREE finance projects. There was port and transportation facilities for communities in the Strait of Canso development. There was general improvement in agricultural production right across the province as a result of DREE initiatives. Again, there is forest management in Nova Scotia and of course there is the tourism industry.
Let us look at Prince Edward Island itself. I will not repeat some of the specific initiatives, such as decentralization which was not a DREE project, the special recovery capital projects program or all of the small craft harbour programs. These are all parallel and complementary to DREE. In the case of Prince Edward Island, DREE contributed to the construction of 20 schools and assisted in setting up industrial parks in Charlottetown and Summerside, funded three grain elevators, helped to construct some 350 miles of highway, and contributed to major projects in the core areas of Charlottetown and Summerside, including the waterfront project to which the Hon. Member made reference. DREE was instrumental in constructing the electrical interconnection cable to New Brunswick.
It was the Prime Minister's view, as expressed by the Government, that the time had come for another bold initiative to build on the accomplishments of DREE but in a way that would make all departments of government sensitive to
the needs of the region. That is fundamental to the reorganization which was announced by the Prime Minister in January, 1982.
I must say that I get angry when I hear people say that this Government has in any way backed off from its commitment for regional development. Quite to the contrary, that organization is intended to make every single department, not just one such as DREE with responsibilities singled out for regional economic development, but all departments of governments represented in the committee of economic and regional development which I chair sensitive to the regional dimension. Furthermore, apart from the sensitivity that has been instilled in all of these departments and the putting in place of an economic development co-ordinator in each of the provinces, the regional fund has remained intact and has been singled out for the financing of specific projects and specific undertakings under the economic and regional development agreements in each of the provinces in order to maintain the historic spending levels.
I believe that the reorganization, as I refer to it, has marked a fundamental initiative to promote much more effective federal policies that serve the objectives of this nation, namely in building up the strengths.
The Hon. Member for Hillsborough made the very point that self-sufficiency is the thrust of solid economic and regional development. We are attempting to achieve self-sufficiency by identifying the strengths of the regions and by doing precisely what the Hon. Member has said, namely by designing our projects and our priorities with respect to each province to build upon the strengths of the region, upon the agricultural strengths of Prince Edward Island, upon the aquaculture strengths and upon the technology bases which are gradually springing up across the country. Of course, we see this at the University of Prince Edward Island and at the community college.
The whole thrust of the Government is to sit down and participate in joint planning with the provinces to determine together the areas of mutual interest. What areas could we identify with the Province of Prince Edward Island? We have done this in several ways. The first way, as we have done in each of the provinces, was to develop an economic development perspective, developed by the economic co-ordinator. In the case of Prince Edward Island, the co-ordinator is well known to the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, Mr. Doug Johnston, who is the senior federal Government economic presence in that province. There is one such person in each province of Canada. They are part of this reorganization.
One of the most important elements of the reorganization is that for the first time federal departments, which as I explained to the Hon. Member are supposed to be sensitive to the regional dimension, are now brought together horizontally in a regional council chaired by the economic development co-ordinator to address in a complementary fashion the economic development requirements of the provinces. As I said, in
May 17, 1984

the case of Prince Edward Island that council is chaired by Mr. Doug Johnston.
Based upon the input of all departments, based upon the input of local chambers of commerce, business communities and labour representatives, and based upon what we know about provincial economic development priorities, the economic development co-ordinator brings forward to me, as the Minister responsible in this case, an economic development perspective for the Province of Prince Edward Island. That is the case for every province in the country. The regional ministers responsible and members of Cabinet then have an opportunity to review that economic development perspective and to select the priorities in which various departments should be participating with respect to the economic development of a particular province. Thereafter we sit down-the departmental ministers responsible for areas which are of a clear priority and I-to determine what the provinces see as their priorities.
I am happy to say that in the case of negotiations with each of the provinces, there has been compatibility of economic objectives in nearly every instance. The whole thrust of the new reorganization is to permit both levels of government to move forward with complementary packages of economic development proposals; in other words, less of the so-called cost-sharing arrangements and more joint planning as well as parallel delivery. That has been the approach.
The presence of our economic development co-ordinators and the economic and regional development agreements which grow out of the economic development perspectives of course is key to the process. In other words, instead of backing off from regional development, we have opened up full throttle on regional development by bringing the entire resources of the Government of Canada, through the economic and regional development committee, to bear in terms of regional development itself. Apropos of that, I might say that what one sees in terms of what may come out of the regional fund for a particular province-and as I said, the historic spending levels will be maintained-is but the tip of the iceberg as to what the federal Government may be spending in a particular province through various line departments.
Let us not look simply at the regional fund. Let us look at other initiatives. In the case of Prince Edward Island I mentioned only two this morning. First I mentioned decentralization, which of course goes back some years. Also I mentioned the veterinary college and the $18.5 million. That is not figured into the calculation of the regional fund; that comes out of the special recovery capital projects program, the $2.4 billion allocated to capital projects across the country.
I did not mention the various small craft programs in Prince Edward Island. We have one at Graham's Pond for $1.9 million; Launching Pond for $1 million; Naufrage for $1.2 million; North Lake for $1.5 million; and the list goes on.


Mr. Forrestall:: Whose ridings are they in?
Supply


Donald James Johnston: I could do the same thing with respect to Dartmouth-Halifax East, if the Hon. Member would like me to.


J. Michael Forrestall: Don't bring that porkbarreling stuff on to the floor of this Chamber.


Donald James Johnston: I believe there will be an opportunity for questions at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is a period provided for questions and comments. The Hon. Minister has the floor to make a speech.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I only have three minutes remaining, I would like to close with a few general remarks, leaving the specifics with respect to funding levels and other initiatives which have been taken to my colleagues who will be speaking today.
All Hon. Members should bear in mind that Canada is the sum of all the regions and it is represented by the Government of Canada. It is not a government for Ontario and Quebec; it is a government for Canada.
The establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was a very creative initiative. It was established to address this heartland-hinterland syndrome. It was a specific department with a specific fund to address infrastructure requirements, primarily of disadvantaged regions. That was done. As I said, I suspect that department enjoyed a fair degree of support from many Members on both sides of the House because of the initiatives which were undertaken.
However, is it right in the long term, once that infrastructure is in place, to say that there will be a department responsible for economic and regional development in the regions and to ask what are the responsibilities or mandates of the other departments? Of course it is not right. That department had a mandate and it was carried out. The time has come to ensure that the full complement of government departments is sensitive to, and plan for, all regions of Canada. That is what has happened, and it is the thrust which must be maintained and pushed forward. In the past departments have often been criticized for not being sensitive. Regional offices have said: "Well, that is DREE's problem, go and talk to DREE about that". This reorganization is attempting to bring all departments into a more coherent system, all with regional sensitivity. I suggest that that is being accomplished. Far from backing off from regional development, it is an initiative designed to move regional development forward further and faster than in the past.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Minister reconcile for the House his claim that the Government has not back-tracked from its commitment to regional economic development with two facts. First, in 1971-72 regional development expenditures constituted 1.8 per cent of the total federal budget. That percentage has gone down steadily ever since, to the point in 1983-84 where it is only .6 per cent. Second, and since he stressed the line departments, the Government has

May 17, 1984
Supply
steadily slashed its subventions to the Atlantic region in the line departments, for example, transportation and health. The Minister will have to reconcile his claim with the elimination of the revenue guarantee component in established programs financing in 1982, that elimination having cost the Atlantic provinces about $90 million per year in revenues they otherwise would have received.
Also he will have to reconcile his claim with the fact that the application of six and five to the post-secondary educational component of established programs financing in 1983-84 and in 1984-85 will cost the Atlantic provinces a further $30 million.
Will the Minister rise and admit to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people of Atlantic Canada, that while the Government has made expenditures on such projects as the relocation of the Department of Veterans Affairs and while it has made subventions to such projects as the Atlantic Regional Veterinary College, it has been a consistent pattern of giving with one hand and taking with the other?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that at all. The fundamental regional support, of course, is through the transfers under the Fiscal Arrangements Act, which we did not even get into today. We have been talking about the regional fund. That fund, of course, is administered by the economic and regional development committee. We are talking about commitments under that fund.
The Hon. Member talked about the percentage of the budget today as opposed to 1971, or whenever the period was. He may be right; I do not have that number in front of me. But so what? Let us look at what debt service was in 1971. That is now part of our budget. I recall from the 1984-85 Main Estimates that of something like $98 billion, $20 billion is now going out on debt service. Clearly there has been a diminishment in all areas relevant to the total Government budget. Playing with figures in this manner does not accomplish anything. The question is whether there has been an increasing commitment to regional development both through a structural change and funding over the years, or there has not.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that the evidence is clear. It is readily apparent from the numbers which I have with respect to the regional fund that funding is being maintained at historical levels from the regional fund without even talking about the other initiatives in the line departments.
He mentioned the cutting of subsidies, as he referred to them. What about the multitude of programs of government that affect Atlantic Canada as they affect other regions? What about the Atlantic fishery? Should we talk about that in terms of how much money is going into regional development to restructure the fishery? Implementing the Kirby report, $198 million. I have not talked about that this morning. Let us not get into a battle of numbers of that kind.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is certainly using specious reasoning. He does not want to accept the fact that the percentage of the budget spent on overcoming regional development has gone down shockingly to 0.6 per cent. Let me point out to the Minister that in 1979-80, for example, the Government spent $76.2 million in Newfoundland under the heading of DREE and regional economic development expenditures. That is the most that was spent in Newfoundland in any year since the program began.
The next year it went down to $46.5 million, the year after down to $36.8 million. In 1983-84, last year, the Government spent only $31.4 million, despite the intervening inflation. This year the estimate is that it will spend $28 million, about one-third of what was spent in 1979-80. That has nothing to do with the debt. This is total dollars. We have had inflation in the meantime. To spend the same this year that we spent in 1979-80, taking inflation into account, the Government would need to spend about $142 million.
Can the Minister explain this fantastic decrease in spending in Newfoundland, which is the province that suffers most from regional inequality? While doing that, can he also explain the failure to pay attention to the Everett Senate Committee, 21 Senators who last year presented a study on Government policy on regional development? They asked the Government to reconsider the decision to abandon the general development agreements. They recommended against eliminating the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. They said that the thrust of the federal Government was to get more profile for itself and that that was counter-productive. They asked who will champion the cause of the least developed provinces in Canada once DREE has gone. They said they were apprehensive. They said that the termination of the general development agreements was a serious mistake, that the Government's reorganization, while paying lip service to regional disparity, will be focused on the main chance megaprojects.
They had all these criticisms, all of which have been borne out in the case of Newfoundland and the Atlantic region. What is the Minister's comment on those two matters, the fantastic decrease in spending in Newfoundland and ignoring the Senate report?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, starting with the Senate report, I have not ignored that report. In fact, I went into the Senate and, as I recall, discussed the report before the committee. If one looks at the report, it is clear that there was a misunderstanding of the Government reorganization. There was not an understanding of the role of the economic development coordinators, which I explained this morning. There was no wide appreciation of the development of economic development perspectives and the economic and regional development agreements that flowed from those perspectives.
I am not suggesting the Senate committee did it intentionally at all, but I do suggest that if it was to redraft that report today, the conclusions would be considerably different if it takes into account the testimony or the answers which I have given before committees of the House and Senate.
May 17, 1984

With respect to Newfoundland, we are again getting into a battle of numbers. My numbers do not seem to correspond with those of the Hon. Member. Let me point out that that too is falling into the trap which I tackled at the outset, namely that these sub-agreements under the general development agreements and agreements under the new economic and regional development agreements will all have cash flow which peaks at one time and then declines.
You have to look at the total spending over a five-year period. If you spend $30 million in year one, $50 million in year two and $75 million in year three, whatever it is, one would expect to see that tail off towards years four and five. For example, the regional development economic expenditures I have for Newfoundland show for 1980-81, $42.1 million, and in 1981-82, $39.3 million, the kind of decline I was speaking of as one comes to the end of the general development agreement.
The 1977-78 to 1981-82 average in Newfoundland was $53.5 million. We then move to 1982-83, according to my numbers, $49.3 million, 1983-84, $97.9 million and 1984-85 projected at $70.3 million. Once again, we are not talking here of all the other initiatives that have been taken in Newfoundland by various line departments, whether it is the National Research Council, the Fisheries Institute and so on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is time for one brief comment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave an interview to Charlotte Montgomery which is printed on the front page of today's Globe and Mail. It states: "When Donald Johnston-"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not in order to quote newspapers in the way the Hon. Member is doing. Displays are not allowed in the House. I invite him to put his question directly and forthrightly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made a speech in Halifax recently in which he was critical of the policy of the leadership candidates and the federal Government's past policies, the lack of economic policies and so on. The Minister came into the House today and said: "I get angry when I hear the Government has backed off its commitment to regional economic development". He feigns hypocritical anger. Is the Minister not being inconsistent in his speech today in view of his speech in Halifax? Is he not completely inconsistent? Is he not sort of like the piano player in a house of ill repute who, when found out, says: "I hear no evil and I see no evil; I just play the piano there"? The Minister has been in the Government. In Halifax he made a speech critical of the Government and then he gives a speech here for the Government. Is that not the height of hypocrisy?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair appreciates that the Minister may want to reply, but the time for questions and comments has expired. The Minister could reply only with unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we are talking apples and oranges. Any speech I made in Halifax had nothing to do with the Government's policy on economic and regional development. The speech in Halifax speaks for itself. My comments this morning speak for themselves. The question is whether the Government has a strong and continuing commitment to economic and regional development. That is the thrust of the motion which has been presented by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). It is clear from the evidence that I have laid before the House this morning that it does have that commitment. That evidence will be supplemented by other Members on this side of the House during the course of the day.
With respect to the reference to a piano player, I do not know whether that was an oblique shot at me or not. However, I can say that there are a number of piano players on this side of the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) and the Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) are piano players. I would only like to point out that there are piano players on this side of the House but there seems to be a lot of brass and a lot of wind on that side of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, speaking of brass and wind, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) just stood up to speak. For those who are tuning in to this debate, he will be speaking after me. They can then hear the brass section and the woodwinds. I know that his speech will be very interesting.


John Carnell Crosbie: The bull fiddle is up right now!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a few comments to make about regional economic development in light of the speeches that have already been made. I must say to the Minister that I hope he plays the piano better than he plays tennis. I noticed that his celebrated black eye is beginning to fade a little bit. I hope his leadership campaign is not doing the same thing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I invite the Hon. Member to address his comments to today's motion? He is talking about everything else.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is precisely what I am doing. I will talk about today's motion but I am just setting the stage, as it were.
I know that the Minister must leave the House, but before he goes I would like to say one thing to him. I think it does not matter if the program is called DRIE or DREE or DRIP or DRAG. The name of the program will not make any difference. What is basically happening is that the Government is throwing some token money into Atlantic Canada and then, through other policies, taking it out again. It is being removed by the transportation policies and even by some of the East Coast fisheries and by the bailing out of the Bank of Nova

May 17, 1984
Supply
Scotia. What is needed is a completely different regional development policy. It seems to me that some of the capital from central Canada must flow into the regions. The Minister can read my speech in Hansard as I will be offering him some suggestions on how he can do that.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) criticizes the DREE program. He says that the Government's gutting of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been a failure. In principle, the idea of changing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was not all that bad. The notion of spreading the problem throughout all departments of government because it was everyone's problem rather than having one ghettoized department was basically a good notion. It had some potential on paper. However, we must understand what the Government has done with the DRIE program. The Government has in fact created a way to pump money into Liberal seats in central Canada. It has created a way to increase grants in a political fashion and a way to pump money into seats that could be won in central Canada. The way the program has been implemented has been the real tragedy for the regions.
The Government changed DREE to DRIE in order to give Liberal incumbents a better chance by putting more money into their constituencies. Once again, those moneys have been concentrated in central Canada. The Government says that this is being done because different constituencies have different disparities and that is the way to give them money. However, this results in more money being channelled in a very political way. The DRIE program has been the most political of all programs and that has been its great failure. It has been a boondoggle patronage program. That is the sad thing about it.
The Hon. Member for Hillsborough correctly pointed out that regional development was a high priority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he assumed office in 1968. However, that priority became warped and was then used for political patronage. From what I can gather, the people in Atlantic Canada should know something about political patronage. I am not from Atlantic Canada and I do not say this in order to downgrade Atlantic Canada, but it seems to me that successive Liberal and Conservative Governments have governed Atlantic Canada through the most gross forms of patronage and with the least amount of planning over the years.
I would like to say a couple of words about the speech of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough. He said that living in the regions of Canada was like living in a different country. I am glad that within that statement he included not only Atlantic Canada but western Canada as well. As a westerner, I can sympathize with that. We sometimes feel as though we are being treated almost as second-class citizens and foreigners in Canada. That has been one of the greatest failures of the Prime Minister's years.
There have been some successes in bringing the French language and the French fact to Canada and in giving it some real influence and power in Ottawa. I consider that to be the
great success of the Prime Minister's years. However, one of the great failures of those years has been the increased alienation of the regions. It is not difficult to figure out why this has happened. The Government's policies have lumped all of the money in central Canada. In a moment I will discuss how some of the Atlantic regions have been hurt by that.
The Hon. Member for Hillsborough said he wanted to be fair. I would put a question to him about social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest. I do not know where he has been lately but he should listen to some of the dinosaurs in his own caucus. Day after day, Hon. Members like the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) get up to speak. The Hon. Member for Hillsborough should listen to them. If he did, he would understand the kind of neo-conservatism that promotes the survival of the fittest companies without government intervention. That will not work in Atlantic Canada.
The Conservative Party advocates certain policies, but what are those policies? Conservative members wanted Senate reform for regional economic expansion. Although the Hon. Member did not mention it, that was one of the offerings of Conservative members. It has been mentioned in the past that Senate reform will somehow solve our regional problems. It seems to me that that will not solve anything.
Another suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough was that the chairs be changed, as it were. He suggested that if we throw out the Liberal black hats and put in the Conservative white hats, it will suddenly make a great deal of difference. The reason I put the question of free trade and John A. Macdonald's policies to the Hon. Member is that it seems to me that over the years Conservative policies if anything have hindered the development of Atlantic Canada.
I would like to say one more thing about the Hon. Member's resolution. He bemoaned the lack of federal-provincial cooperation. We all want to see federal-provincial co-operation. Alexa McDonough, the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia, said that provincially and federally the NDP is committed to regional development based on co-operation controlled by and for the people of Atlantic Canada. This has been said by a number of people in a number of ways.
Since I do not come from Atlantic Canada, perhaps I can afford to be a bit more frank in this debate than some of the other Members. As I see it, the problem with federal co-operation with Atlantic Canada is that the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada are such bad governments.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Oh, come on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are very poor governments. They have never had very much of a concept of planning. Many of their policies are strictly based on patronage. I am not being holier than thou. I know we have not had the best governments in the world in the Province of British Columbia. To be frank, I would like to see regional co-operation and federal-provincial co-operation. However, when we have that kind of co-operation with the present goverments in Atlantic Canada, we end up with worse programs. I believe the record will show that.
May 17, 1984


Thomas Michael McMillan: What is the record? Give me one example.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member wants an example. Look at the growth record which he gave for Atlantic Canada and the economic problems which exist. The fact is that regional policies have not worked very well in Atlantic Canada.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Give me one example of patronage.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the Hon. Member does not know one example of patronage in Atlantic Canada, he should go to the region during an election campaign. The last time I was in Nova Scotia during an election, it was getting very hot in the car because they were paving the highway beneath us. They paved it into the Hon. Member's riding because they wanted him to win.
With reference to the Hon. Member's motion, I would like to comment on federal-provincial co-operation. One of the great things which Atlantic Canada needs is capital inflow. What exists there is capital outflow. Nova Scotians, I am told, save much money. A lot of them, being of Scottish background like my ancestors and myself, are great savers. Much of the money that is invested in savings goes out of the Atlantic provinces. If we want real regional economic development, we must find ways of putting money into the Atlantic provinces.
Instead of talking about DREE and DRIE and debating what is happening in their particular programs, we should focus on putting money into the region. That means looking at the banks. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) talked about that. He spoke about decentralizing the banks. He only touched on it, he did not go into that idea very much. I do not think it is enough to speak only of regional offices and banks. We should be talking about taking over public ownership of at least one of the major charter banks in Canada. Then we should direct that money toward those regions and toward the small-businessmen. That would be a change in economic development. That would be a really different regional economic development program.


John Carnell Crosbie: A real Canadair that would be.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, I suggest to the Hon. Member that when we consider the record in Atlantic Canada by both Conservative and Liberal Governments, we see what has happened since Confederation, and we see the outflow of brains and capital, it may be better to consider taking a more radical approach toward the area.
I would like to quote some remarks which were made at a regional meeting in New Glasgow by Mr. Jim Mayne, the NDP Leader in Prince Edward Island, Mr. Peter Fenwick of Newfoundland and Labrador, George Little of New Brunswick and Alexa McDonough of Nova Scotia. They issued a statement about economic development in Atlantic Canada and I would like to read parts of that statement. They indicated-
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) may find the present occupant of the chair rather obnoxious this morning because I have had to call him to order on a number of occasions. There is a rule regarding quotations in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member may, of course, want to quote and cite the source of his quote, but persons outside of the House are not part of the debate in the House. If the Hon. Member chooses to quote those comments that he has alluded to, he should make those quotations his own words. I should caution him about that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, you will note that I do not give my speeches out of a departmental memo, as Ministers do and then read them. I am incorporating, as part of my speech, some remarks and ideas made by people from Atlantic Canada. As I do so, I do so indirectly, and I will do that.
The idea which has been advanced is that the federal Government has given up the pretence of stimulating eocnomic development in Atlantic Canada as a federal priority. It has done this by dismantling DREE. I said that at the beginning of my speech. The difference between DREE and DRIE is that DRIE will stimulate more money for central Canada.
The people of Atlantic Canada deserve better than that. We require co-operation in Atlantic Canada in a completely different way. We must focus on different sectors of the area. That is the key which I have come to understand in western Canada. That is our key to economic growth. I think we should be focusing on the strengths of Atlantic Canada-on energy, shipbuilding, transportation and getting some manufacturing of primary resources into Atlantic Canada.
I would like to focus on shipbuilding. Shipbuilding has been our proudest tradition in Canada, and certainly in Atlantic Canada. If we carried more Canadian goods and required that more Canadians goods be shipped on Canadian-built ships, we could develop our shipbuilding industry. Offshore development will help the shipbuilding industry, but we must have a commitment and certain requirements that goods be purchased in Atlantic Canada and that shipbuilding be developed there. This country has been lacking a comprehensive shipping and shipbuilding policy. That is one area on which we could focus that would help Atlantic Canada.
With respect to transportation, if we want to develop the region, it seems to me that there must be a strong co-operative approach on the part of the Atlantic provincial governments to oppose any move to erode the Maritime Freight Rates Act. In my view it is their historic right under Confederation to have that assistance. It is of immense importance. It will maintain jobs and economic development in Atlantic Canada.
I have already made reference to the fisheries. I think it is scandalous that the Minister bragged about the money which is provided to East Coast fisheries, when $70 million of $90 million went to bail out the Bank of Nova Scotia. It is the same story-patronage, bail-outs, and the lack of dealing with the issue at root in Atlantic Canada. Energy is another area

May 17, 1984
Supply
which requires proper development and co-operation on the East Coast.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that it is the same in British Columbia and Alberta as it is in Atlantic Canada. We must have a commitment from the federal Government much like the commitment of the Prime Minister to give Quebec its rightful place in Canada. We must have a commitment to develop the regions. We must have a commitment from the federal Government to provide capital for those regions. That is why it will take more radical measures than is provided by changing DREE to DRIE. It will require provincial governments that are prepared to plan, not just sell out to the nearest multinational company that wants to come in, promise some jobs and milk the province for all it is worth. Perhaps these are not popular things to say. Perhaps I will be criticized for saying them. However, I am trying to point out the truth as I see it. It is time politicians spoke the truth to the people of Atlantic Canada. Then maybe in the future we will see policies which will provide some real development for that region.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Hon. Member who just spoke made the worst and broadest generalization I have ever heard in debate on any subject in this House since I became a Member of Parliament in May of 1979, namely, that provincial governments in the Atlantic region are bad administrators. I think he might have said lousy administrators. In light of that, would the Hon. Member cite a single specific program which he considers maladministered by any one of the four Atlantic provinces? Apart from general references to patronage or to general economic conditions in the region, which specific program has been maladministered and in what specific way has that program been maladministered? How would the NDP have administered that specific program differently from the way it was administered by the relevant province?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I assume the Hon. Member has been to Atlantic Canada, as he represents a riding in Atlantic Canada. I am calling it as I see it. For example, with respect to snow clearing, if another government gets in, different people have the contract. Highways contracts change. There is a tradition of a kind of old-fashioned patronage down there which has died out somewhat in other parts of the country.
It seems to me that Atlantic Canada has lousy governments which have not served their people very well. I believe they have contributed to the lack of development there. For example, I believe Premier Peckford in Newfoundland has been a disaster in going to court on the question of offshore oil, spending all his time in court and not hammering out some sort of agreement with the federal Government. I do not believe that has served the interests of the people of Newfoundland.
It seems to me from afar that those governments would rather fight in very partisan talking fests which really do not get down to planning for the issues. I mentioned the example of multinational companies moving in, giving the people all
sorts of breaks, including bad labour contracts or lack of unions and so on. They get into a situation where they are governed almost like a Third World country.
These are tough words but I believe someone should say what is going on down in Atlantic Canada. From my observation, I have never seen worse governments in Canada than in some of the Atlantic Provinces in the way they deal with their resources and mislead their people; and I make reference to Premier Buchanan with respect to the development of offshore oil and gas in Nova Scotia, which I believe is atrocious. I hope at some point the people of Atlantic Canada will throw these governments out. Whether they are Conservative or Liberal Governments they have not really provided decent development and decent planning for the people of Atlantic Canada. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the Hon. Member would just read his own speech about some of the economic problems in Atlantic Canada, he will see the evidence there.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just finished speaking has made some of the broadest generalizations and most scurrilous imputations with respect to four of the governments of Canada and has yet to give us one concrete example. Does the Hon. Member realize that during the Peckford administration-and he may think it is an error in its approach to try to resolve the offshore issue-there has not been one instance of patronage or excess brought to public light in respect of that government yet? Does the Hon. Member not realize that the Government of Canada is rife with every symptom which he is alleging applies to the four Atlantic Provinces with respect to patronage on a gigantic scale across the country? Yet he sees fit to single out with a blanket indictment the four governments of the Atlantic Provinces. Surely that must be the reason why there is not a provincial representative from the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick.
Does the Hon. Member not realize that this is the kind of smug, mainland attitude which the Atlantic Provinces have had to fight against now for a hundred years? And he is giving vent to the worst kind of ignorant prejudice in his remarks without putting forth one iota of evidence to sustain it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I take offence at the allegation of "smug, mainland attitude". I told the Hon. Member that I call them as I see them, as someone who has not taken part. The Conservative Party has been part of those governments, those poor governments. The Hon. Member who just spoke was a part of the Liberal Government there and he jumped ship-


John Carnell Crosbie: I am Conservative-both.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -both of them. He reratted, moved from one over to the other and back.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, one to the other. Reratting comes later.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, he has not done that yet. The fact is, and I stand by it, that the Peckford Government was wrong in dealing, I believe, with its negotiations in offshore oil, and it has not really produced for the people of Newfoundland. I do
May 17, 1984

not know how the Hon. Member himself feels, but I believe if he looks at it objectively, he will see that there have been problems in not getting that development going. I blame partly the Peckford Government, although not entirely.
1 cannot say-and 1 did not say-that the federal Government is not giving patronage and so on. I pointed out that the DR1E program in fact leads to greater patronage and that the DREE program was always infested with patronage. 1 just said, and I will stand by it, that there has been a difficulty in getting some of the programs going with the provincial governments there because they have not run the programs very well. They have not been particularly well planned governments in dealing with industry in the provinces. I stand by that; and if it hurts to tell the truth, then it may hurt, but it is the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? The House will now proceed to debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal any further with the remarks of the last speaker because I only have 20 minutes, except to say that I am surprised and disappointed at that particular Hon. Member making those kinds of sweeping statements and generalizations without being in the position to offer any particulars or any proof. I am surprised by him and disappointed with him. However, I do not have the time to spend any further on the subject of the offshore oil, or his allegations.
I might say that it is a disappointment also, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, who is responsible for overcoming regional disparity in this country, made his own speech and then left this Chamber. It is not very often that regional disparity, and the attempts to overcome it, are debated in this Chamber. We have a chance today for debate because the Opposition chose this day to discuss these very real problems about Atlantic Canada. But the Minister most involved has made his own speech and gone, and there is not here in this House one other Minister of the Government to listen to what we are saying or to attempt to rebut us, or anything else. Mr. Speaker, this illustrates the fact that this Government has even given up any pretence of an attempt to overcome regional disparity in this country.
The Minister who did speak is supposed to be one of the intellects; he is the thinker. He is the Rodin of the Liberal Party, we are told. Well, the Gallup poll today shows us how high he stands. It says 30 per cent of the public would back Turner; 21 per cent, Chretien; 2 per cent, Roberts; 1 per cent, Munro; 1 per cent, MacGuigan; and only 0.5 per cent would support this alleged thinker of the Liberal Party. That will show you how greatly Liberals esteem thinkers.
This is a motion, Mr. Speaker, which is most serious in its intent. I am going to produce some impartial authority to show how this Government has decided to give up on the battle to overcome regional inequalities across Canada. I want to start by referring to an article by Barry Lesser entitled "Regional Development Matters", in Policy Options of November, 1983, which deals with this subject. I want to give some quotations from this article:
Supply
Regional disparities measured in terms of earned incomes have not been substantially reduced-
And that is over the years since 1968.
-except to the extent that the oil-producing Prairie provinces have gained.
In other words, with respect to "earned incomes", nothing has been gained in this whole so-called battle against regional disparities since the federal Government took up that battle, starting with the present Prime Minister's statement of 1968. The article goes on to point out:
Second, and most important, unemployment has become a national problem; it is no longer confined to pockets within less developed regions.
It was thought that unemployment was a regional problem in the 1960s. However, under the aegis of this Government, unemployment has become a national problem. It is no longer considered to be a regional problem. It applies right across the country, although it is worse, of course, in the Atlantic Provinces, and in my own Province of Newfoundland it is worst of all. The article continues with another conclusion:
In 1968 when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) began, its expenditures represented 2 per cent of the federal Budget. In 19801981, DREE expenditures were 1 per cent of the federal Budget.
We have already referred to other statistics. Since 19801981 there was 1 per cent of the federal budget spent in the battle to overcome regional inequalities. In 1981-1982, 0.9 per cent only; in 1982-1983, 0.6 per cent. Last year, 0.6 per cent. That will show you, Mr. Speaker, how the Government's interest in DREE has diminished and how its spending on DREE has diminished in no uncertain terms, just as this article points out.
Mr. Lesser says the Government's commitment has declined. He then goes on to mention that in January, 1982 the federal Government announced a reorganization. A new ministry, that of DRIE, and another new ministry, that of MSERD, were created. He says the implications of this reorganization are still to be determined. Superficially at least it seems to confirm the hypothesis of a lessening federal commitment to development in the "peripheral regions".
We are a peripheral region in the Atlantic Provinces, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear that there is a lessening federal commitment to developing the peripheral regions. He says that the new structure of these ministries creates the potential for a much greater centralization of decision-making which could mean less sensitivity to the concerns and needs of the region. That is just what has happened, Mr. Speaker. There is no sensitivity to the concerns and needs of the region. Decisionmaking is more centralized under the new structure.
The author points out that in 1970-71 the Atlantic Provinces accounted for 53 per cent of DREE expenditures. In 1980-81, the figure was 36 per cent. Now the Atlantic Provinces, as my colleague said earlier, are getting less and less of a diminishing amount. Only 36 per cent of all DREE spending in 1980-81 was in the Atlantic Provinces. The author points out that Newfoundland has fared particularly badly since 1980, probably because of the continuing political dispute between New-

May 17, 1984
Supply
foundland and Ottawa over the offshore. In other words, Newfoundland is being punished because it is standing up for its rights with respect to the control of offshore resources.
The author says that in constant dollar terms DREE expenditures in the Atlantic region fell-f-e-1-1-by 41.2 per cent between 1970-71 and 1977-78. Elsewhere in Canada they increased by 5.9 per cent. In the area that needs the money most, spending declined 41.2 per cent in constant dollars while elsewhere in Canada spending increased. Why? Because the DREE funds to overcome regional disparity were grabbed like they were garbage and scattered across Canada in other areas which the Government controls and where it thought it would do it more political good-in Quebec, Ontario and across the country. The money was no longer going to the areas that really needed it. By any objective standard it was just used as a grab bag across this country. That is what has happened, Mr. Speaker, and this article proves it.
He goes on to say that the Atlantic Provinces continue to be not only the relatively most disadvantaged provinces in Canada, but also the provinces which individually and collectively have the least ability to influence federal policy. That is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The representatives from those four provinces are the ones who have the least ability to influence federal policy. The votes are in central Canada, this is a government based in central Canada, and it does not give a good hoot about what happens in the "peripheral" regions of Canada. He quotes the late David Alexander of Memorial University who said that there must be some reason for having a country other than to provide a common market. It is possible, he said, to have a common market without having a country.
There must be some reason, Mr. Speaker, for this being one country. We in the Atlantic Provinces do not want to be just providing a market for the goods from central Canada. You can have a common market without having a country, so there has to be some other reason for our being a country other than just to provide a market for central Canadian goods, and for transfer payments so we can buy central Canadian goods.
The author says that a commitment to regional development in Canada and the sense of belonging to a country constitute a two-way relationship. Nationhood implies a commitment to development for all regions. A desire to develop a region may help to create a commitment to nationhood. That is a statement that I absolutely agree with, Mr. Speaker. This is an article worth perusal by any Member of this House. It supports our motion and the truth of our motion.
Just let me now look at Newfoundland and the punishment this Government meted out to Newfoundland because of its political dispute with the Government there. In 1979-80 it reached a high point: $76.2 million in spending. The next year, 1980-81, $46.5 million; 1981-82, $36.8 million spent under DREE; 1982-83, $34.9 million; 1983-84, $31.4 million. The estimate for the present year is $28 million. This is not just because the old programs were running out; the Government of Canada would not enter into new programs with the Government of Newfoundland because it wanted to punish Newfoundland for daring to stand up for what it felt to be its rights.
A ten-year general development agreement was signed in 1974. The federal Minister responsible for DREE said that $1 billion would be spent under that program. But all that was actually spent under that agreement and the 23 subsidiary agreements was $500 million, just 50 per cent of the expenditure level promised in 1974. Why? Because this Government decided to punish Newfoundland for taking an independent attitude on the offshore. That is why, Mr. Speaker.
In January, 1980 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to Newfoundland to campaign. He said that the main message in the campaign is that to keep Newfoundland growing they have to get rid of the Crosbie Budget. That is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Well, they got rid of the Crosbie Budget that would have let Newfoundland grow. What happened in 1983? Why, the gross domestic product of Newfoundland was 2 per cent lower in real terms than it was in 1980. Unemployment in Newfoundland in 1980 averaged 13.3 per cent while we were in office and we had the Crosbie Budget. What did it average last year? Some 18.8 per cent. What is it in April of this year? Some 19.6 per cent. So much for the Prime Minister's guff that to keep Newfoundland growing we have to get rid of the Crosbie Budget. If we had had the Crosbie Budget, Newfoundland would have been growing today as it would have grown for the last four and a half years.
He then went on to say that they have not let Newfoundland down in the past and they will not in the future. All that Prime Minister has done for the last four and a half years is let Newfoundland down.
What was the fourth plank of the Liberal economic platform in the election? It was to build greater economic strength in each region of the country as the basis for over-all Canadian prosperity. That was the commitment. Has the Government done that? No, it has done away with DREE and replaced it with DRIE, and reduced its spending and efforts in the past at overcoming regional disparity. I mentioned the Senate report Government Policy and Regional Development which pointed out the weaknesses in the present program but I do not have time to refer to it again.
In September, 1983 the Premier met with the Minister who spoke today. They agreed upon ten initiatives on which subsidiary agreements should be concluded over the last year. Only two of the agreements were signed, covering minerals and planning; there are eight outstanding. Rural development, not signed; pulp and paper mill modernization, not signed; transportation, not signed; ocean industries, not signed; tourism, not signed; agriculture, not signed; Burin Peninsula development fund, not signed; fisheries infrastructure, not signed. That is why there is only going to be $28 million spent in Newfoundland this financial year under the whole DRIE program. It should at least be $140 million to remain at the same level of effort as 1979-80.
The Government is not signing programs and I can give instance after instance. Here is an instance of the federal Government ignoring the provincial government. There is no

May 17, 1984
consultation or co-operation, but there is unilateralism, centralization, publicity seeking, bullying and imperialist tactics, Mr. Speaker. One of a long list of examples of that was the synchrolift at the CN dockyards in St. John's. The Government refused to go ahead with a synchrolifter for their own dockyard and the Newfoundland Government had to provide the financing for a federal dockyard. There was the offshore mineral resources dispute. That is the only way that this region can be pulled up by its own bootstraps to become economically self-sufficient, yet the federal Government refuses to co-operate or to let the provinces have any say in the management and control of the resource.
With regard to search and rescue facilities, there should be a separate region for Newfoundland with a rescue co-ordination centre in St. John's and fixed-wing support and helicopters. But no, the federal Government will not permit that. It knows better.
The federal Government announced a minimum security prison at Donovan's Industrial Park in my district in the city of Mount Pearl in a former RCMP building. No one was consulted beforehand. The zoning does not permit it. I will quote from The Evening Telegram of November 25:
Rompkey said Wednesday such a facility is long overdue in the province, but renovating an old building in the middle of an industrial park is "madness and an insult to the people of Newfoundland."
The Solicitor General of his own Government was doing this, but Rompkey said it was "madness and an insult". The article continues:
Rompkey said it would not be done anywhere else in Canada-"certainly not in Toronto, which is Mr. Kaplan's area."
That is the kind of co-operation and conciliation we have with the federal Government in Newfoundland, one federal Minister attacking the other. In fact, the Newfoundland Minister was treated in a scurvy, despicable manner. He was kicked out of the federal Cabinet last August 12. Another Minister was put in who did not last 10 days because of certain income tax problems he had. Six months later the Minister of State for Mines, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), was reappointed. He has no authority in the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. He has no muscle, influence or clout. He was treated like a piece of lint. He was flicked off the Prime Minister's shoulder and flicked back on again six months later. Is it any wonder we get nothing in Newfoundland? We are not even treated like a good, decent carpetbagger. That shows you how strong Newfoundland is in the councils of the federal Government.
In March of last year they closed the Shoe Cove satellite station. They centralized the facilities in Churchill, Manitoba. What do we think of the Liberals? "De Bane lied to shield Tory, top Liberal says". Mr. Neary, the Leader of the Opposition, called the Minister of Fisheries a liar, as reported in the March 16, 1984, Globe and Mail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: My God, it is not over already, is it?
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. Order. Would the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Hon. Member cannot indirectly call another Hon. Member of the House a liar by virtue of quoting an article. The Hon. Member for St. John's West quoted from a newspaper article which quoted a person calling an Hon. Member a liar. As I am sure the Hon. Member for St. John's West knows, that is against the rules. I would ask him to withdraw that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would never call the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) a liar in this House. I am just saying that the Leader of the Opposition of Newfoundland called the Minister of Fisheries of Canada a liar. I am not agreeing with it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the Chair cannot accept that. As much as I appreciate the course followed by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, it is basic in this Parliament that one Hon. Member, directly or indirectly, does not call another Hon. Member a liar. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that statement unequivocally.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw the statement.
They closed the satellite station which was at Shoe Cove. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), who now has 36 delegates in Newfoundland supporting him, closed the satellite station. The 11 employees were laid off. The station was taken apart and sent out to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and Churchill, Manitoba to save money. This station provided meteorological data for weather forecasts and oceanographic information. It could determine where the ice was off the East Coast shoreline and so on. There are a thousand reasons why that satellite station should have stayed there, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources closed it and showed his lack of concern for Newfoundland. Now 36 Liberal delegates are going to support that satellite knifer when they go to the Liberal convention here in Ottawa.
The Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill is closing in Corner Brook in late 1984. The Newfoundland Government is trying to get the federal Government to help them find a replacement company. There are three or four companies interested in taking over the Bowater operation. Can the Newfoundland Government get the federal Government to make a commitment to put up some money to help modernize the plant? No. That matter drags on while a town of 25,000 people is in peril on the West Coast of Newfoundland with their pulp and paper mill scheduled to close this coming fall. They have gotten no co-operation from the Government of Canada. This is another example of lack of interest in the Atlantic Provinces.
A fishing agreement with the U.S.S.R. was entered into several weeks ago without provincial involvement, knowledge or approval. Fishing is the main industry of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. That is an example of failure to consult or co-operate. There was an imposition of spending restraints on the health and EPF programs which is going to cost Newfoundland a total of $30 million this year. The regional

May 17, 1984
Supply
development association funding agreement was allowed to lapse and was not taken up again until just several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker.
We are waiting to hear whether the federal Government will provide some financing for a convention centre in St. John's. It has provided financing for nine convention centres in Canada. Funding has been provided to Vancouver, Edmonton, Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Charlottetown. St. John's badly needs a convention centre. There are plans for a hotel, office tower and convention centre to go ahead at a total cost of $36 million. The federal Government has been asked to provide S3 million. Hopefully, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will act in the next few weeks on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I really regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his speaking time has expired. Questions or comments?


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, although the motion which is before the House says that the federal Government did away with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is the Hon. Member not aware that there have been substantial agreements signed with the Newfoundland Government recently and that blanket over-all agreements have been signed for the next 10 years? Does he not agree that these recent agreements will see substantial progress, economically speaking, in the Province of Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that for well in excess of one year the Government of Newfoundland has been attempting to get the federal Government to conclude certain agreements. There were 10 initiatives agreed upon last September. There have only been two agreements signed since, one on minerals and one on planning. There was an agreement signed the other day, an ERDA agreement. One must be an alphabetical genius to keep up with the initials that the federal Government thinks up. An economic and regional development agreement was signed which is just a general over-all umbrella agreement. There may or may not be anything done under that agreement.
I do know that at the present time there is only going to be $28 million spent in all of Newfoundland and Labrador this year under the heading of DRIE or DREE or ERDA or A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. There will be only $28 million spent when six years ago over $76 million was spent. This shows what a feeble attempt your Government is making to do anything to help overcome regional disparity in Newfoundland and how ashamed you should be to be a member of that Party. You should not even offer to run down in Gander-Twillingate with such a record to run on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for St. John's West should address his remarks to the Chair. It being one o'clock, this House stands adjourned 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. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all patriotic Canadians to come to the aid of a worthy cause. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), not wishing to be relegated to the backbenches by either John Turner or the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), or indeed to suffer an even more diabolical fate planned for him by the Tories after the next General Election, wants to become the Secretary-General of the OECD.
After the famous photo opportunity, Canadians will remember that the last time the Finance Minister became concerned with his own career it cost them $200 million. However, this should not prevent us from shipping him off to Paris. Being the closest thing to an aristocrat Canada has ever produced, he should fit right in. Paris's loss would be our gain.
The United States, in believing that a Canadian Liberal is far more of a left wing interventionist than French socialist Jean-Claude Paye whom they support, may be correct. But we must convince them that the removal of our friend, the Minister, from the North American continent would be as good for them as it is for us.
Canadians can, however, take heart. In the OECD sweepstakes our candidate appears to be winning by a nose.


FRANCO-MANITOBANS' RIGHTS DISSIDENTS IN PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has done it again. The Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has now expressed her approval of the destructive position on Franco-Manitoban language rights taken by Bud Sherman. What is really surprising is the assumption that this Party would admit avowed anti-Francophones among its members. Far from being anxious to repent, the Progressive Conservative Members are continuing their incredible crusade against the rights of linguistic minorities in Canada.
May 17, 1984

Among those taking this view in the Progressive Conservative Party are, first of all, the Conservative Members from Manitoba, and especially the Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine (Mr. McKenzie); second, the Member for Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart); third, the Member for Kingston and the Islands who gave Mr. Sherman her approval yesterday; and fourth, the prospective Progressive Conservative candidate in Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
I find it hard to reconcile these attitudes with a statement by the Leader of the Official Opposition in which he made it clear he would tolerate no dissent within his party. It seems Canadians will soon have a chance to put a stop to the linguistic foolishness of Progressive Conservatives.


BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS-CALL FOR RE-EXAMINATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might use this opportunity to suggest to Your Honour that we somehow bring into the mid 1980s the daily televising of the House of Commons, and especially this hour of statements and questions. This is your show, Mr. Speaker.
The House of Commons' broadcast service controls the way in which countless viewers perceive Parliament in action. Since 1977 televising the House of Commons has been treated like an electronic Hansard. I submit that this turgid, automated form of broadcasting our proceedings has outlived its usefulness in terms of enlightening Canadians on the parliamentary process. If anything, we are frustrating viewers because they cannot see or hear the true stuff of Question Period, as only the Hon. Member who is speaking can be shown on camera.
Broadcasting proceedings of the House of Commons is no longer experimental; after seven years it is a reality and a ritual with hundreds of thousands of Canadian viewers. As one who has both a working knowledge of television production and a love of Parliament, I am getting the seven-year itch. I feel that it is time for a re-examination of this system before the next Parliament.
May I suggest that the Chair set in motion an evaluation of what we can do technically, to sparkle up the production and perception of these proceedings. A special committee under Your Honour's chairmanship could obtain a political consensus on where we want to go and how we control the best daily hour-long television program from the nation's capital.
Let us demonstrate to Canadians how lucky we are to watch democracy in action, but let us give them the full picture.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians in most cities are presently receiving air travel sales, while in Winnipeg, where the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) comes from, Winnipegers must pay high air fares and are not receiving the benefit of any sales. Yet the Minister just announced the deregulation program that is supposed to bring about reduced fares by virtue of competition.
There is no competition in the air market in Winnipeg. The Minister is only threatening the possibility of such service in Winnipeg, while his constituents continue to pay very high prices for air fares.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a book which will be published on May 21. Its title is The Office of Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth. Its publication was sponsored by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and its author is Philip Laundy, one of our two Clerk Assistants.
Although the author published a previous book on the office of Speaker in 1964, the forthcoming publication is the first to cover the subject on a Commonwealth-wide basis. It deals with the Speakership in some 40 countries, ranging from the great subcontinent of India to the tiny islands of the Caribbean and the Pacific. One chapter is devoted to the history of the office, but the emphasis of the book is on the contemporary Speakership in these widely separated nations.
The common parliamentary heritage of the Commonwealth emerges very clearly from the pages of this book. A great deal of original research went into its preparation, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association considers it to be a significant contribution to the literature of Parliament.
It is for this reason that a subsidy was made available from the working capital fund to enable this book to be published. The fund was established to promote projects of this kind, and to assist smaller Parliaments of the Commonwealth to develop libraries or book collections.
Those of us who have been closely involved in the activities of the CPA have seen for ourselves the vital role that it plays in strengthening the ties within this great family of nations. We have seen that "unity in diversity" is more than a phrase; it is a practical philosophy which forms the basis of the Commonwealth. This is the theme that emerges from Philip Laundy's book, and I commend it to the attention of all parliamentarians.
May 17, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to raise the issue of potato inspection on Prince Edward Island. The Prince Edward Island Women in Support of Agriculture have written to express their concern over the proposal by the federal Government to cut back on inspection services for potatoes. I must commend these women on their efforts to ensure that the potato industry is maintained and improved, not eliminated as the federal Government proposes.
I would like to impress upon the House the importance of the potato industry to the economy of Prince Edward Island. The potato industry on Prince Edward Island is as important to our economy as the wheat industry is to the West. Unless the quality of P.E.I. potatoes is maintained, we will no longer be competitive in the market, and will suffer great financial losses.
This is an Opposition day in the House. We are debating the Government's failure to counter regional disparity within the provinces of Canada. It is important for the Government to realize that, unless it takes action to assist the potato industry in P.E.I., it will be contributing to the present disparity in that province by negatively affecting the main contributor to the economy.
I urge that the Government take steps to realize the importance of the potato industry to the economy of P.E.I. and maintain the present level of potato inspection on the Island in an attempt to keep Prince Edward Island competitive in the potato industry.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, direct government involvement in ventures to assist regional industry is sometimes the only sensible course. The Cape Breton coal mining industry in Nova Scotia is a prime example.
The Government of Canada decided to participate in the coal mining industry in 1967 when the Cape Breton Development Corporation was established. While Devco has not enjoyed success in all its activities, the Corporation has provided employment for thousands of Nova Scotians in coal mining.
The disastrous fire on April 5, 1984, at No. 26 colliery ended the most extensive project in the Devco mining operation. This fire resulted in the tragic loss of a life, and immediately terminated the employment of 1,000 coal miners. These
Cape Breton coal miners, together with thousands of other Nova Scotians whose jobs depend on the coal mines, are looking to the Government of Canada for help through its Crown agency, Devco.
Billions of dollars are spent by the Government to assist industrial activity in Canada, most recently in the aircraft industry. Nova Scotians, dependent on the Cape Breton coal mining industry, are merely asking the Government to honour its 1967 commitment, and provide a fair share of help to an industry in Atlantic Canada which needs and deserves assistance now.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the League for Human Rights of the B'nai Brith, supported by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the Swedish-Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese-Canadian National Council, and the Federation Internationale des Droits de l'homme, have asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to declare Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada, and I wish to add my voice in support.
Mr. Wallenberg is known throughout the free world for his heroic efforts in rescuing 100,000 Jews from death at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War. After the war he was arrested, and has remained imprisoned in the Soviet Union. In 1957 the Soviets claimed that he had died. However, reports continue to surface indicating that Mr. Wallenberg is alive.
In 1981 Mr. Wallenberg was declared an honorary citizen of the United States of America, only the second foreigner accorded that honour. The other was Winston Churchill. He has been nominated several times for the Nobel Prize, and is again nominated this year.
The Soviet Union continues to practise the worst cultural genocide against its Jews that we have seen in years. The Secretary of State has a rare and important opportunity, both to honour an extraordinary man for his extraordinary courage and commitment to human rights, and to signal to the Soviets that Mr. Wallenberg and all those for whom he fought should be freed and allowed to leave. I urge the Minister to act immediately.
May 17, 1984


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
[Stage Direction]
NEWSPAPER REPORT OF STATEMENT BY HON. FLORA Macdonald
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I was a little upset about a recent statement by the Member for Kingston and the Islands, when she said there was room for opposing views on the controversial French language issue within the federal Progressive Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party ought to make up its mind once and for all, if it intends to be honest with the Canadian people. It seems to me the Party's Leader has already said he would never tolerate any dissent on such basic issues in his party. Perhaps the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party should take this opportunity to clarify the situation once and for all. Perhaps he could also tell us whether he intends to run in Central Nova, or in Quebec, or elsewhere. Here again, he does not seem to know where he is going. He is quite welcome to run in the riding of Temiscamingue, if he is short of alternatives. We are ready for him! I would therefore ask the Leader of the Official Opposition to tell Canadians exactly what his position is on these two issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, over the years there have been several Motions under Standing Order 43, and now under Standing Order 21, dealing with the plight of political prisoners in the Soviet Union. Most of these Motions received the unanimous consent of the House for action to be taken. Would it be possible for the First Commoner, the Hon. Speaker, to give the House a name by name update on the results of these actions?
Some of the individuals involved have apparently not been granted any kind of reprieve, nor even a lessening of their difficult conditions of imprisonment, and most, if not all, are suffering from serious health problems. Some of these individuals are relatives of Canadian citizens and as such should receive consideration under the Family Reunification Program.
However, regardless of who they are, these persons have put their lives on the line in defence of the principles of human rights and deserve our continued support and intervention, for as Dr. Andrei Sakharov once said: "Without human rights, there is no detente-no peace".
Oral Questions REFUGEES


REFUGEE STATUS CLAIMANTS-ORAL HEARINGS PROGRAM
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, for several years the Government has been delaying a decision on the question of whether to allow oral hearings for people who claim refugee status. There are now about 12,000 people in Canada claiming refugee status, and less than 400 of them have benefited from a pilot project initiated by the Government a year ago.
This pilot project has been dramatically successful. It allowed refugee claimants to be heard directly by one or more members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. It has shortened the administrative time from an average of about 15 months to an average of about two months, to the great benefit of refugees and in some cases of their families, and to the benefit of the Department which must bear the expense of staff work and maintenance work for refugee claimants while they are awaiting a decision.
The program has been strikingly successful, yet the Minister continues to delay giving a report. He has promised repeatedly to report on that project, and on the question of whether all refugees will be allowed oral hearings in somewhat the same fashion. However, to this day he continues to be silent on the subject, and has suggested instead that all matters relating to refugees should be the subject of yet another report by yet another-


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately the Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Who is it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Perhaps it is one of the nine. On April 11 the Prime Minister was questioned about the use of government jets by Liberal leadership candidates. He said on that occasion that any flight strictly or essentially taken for partisan political purposes should not be taken at public expense. Could the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that his Department or that of the Minister of Transport is enforcing those guidelines in the interests of Canadian taxpayers?


Some Hon. Members:: Who is going to answer?

May 17, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the intent of the guidelines in question must be observed. However, there is no evidence that could lead us to believe there was an infringement of these guidelines. If the Hon. Member has some specific examples to give the House, let him do so. Yes, there are guidelines in this respect, and we believe they have been, and ought to be, observed.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with specific reference to the Minister of Justice, by Friday of this week he will have spent three and a quarter hours in three days on government business. According to his campaign committee, the rest of the time was spent meeting delegates to the Liberal leadership convention. That is his business, but when he uses government jets to meet delegates, that is taxpayers' business. Has the Acting Prime Minister satisfied himself, or will he satisfy himself, that it was strictly and essentially necessary for the Minister of Justice to be using government JetStars during his current trip to the Maritimes?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, as the Hon. Member acknowledged, had to use these planes to attend to Government business, namely that of his own Department. I asked the Hon. Member earlier to be more specific in his accusations, if he really has any, and to show how a Minister, in this case the Minister of Justice, could have made improper use of planes that are at the disposal of the Government. However, from his question it is clear that the Minister of Justice used the aircraft to deal with his own departmental business and to represent the Government. If on the same occasion he happened to meet delegates, it was probably a coincidence.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Now that my colleague is the Acting Prime Minister, perhaps he will be put on the mailing list.


CHARTERING OF JETSTARS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the House will know that John Turner continues to fly as a corporate director of Canadian Pacific. Putting aside that conflict of interest, what steps will the Government take in the future to ensure that when Cabinet Ministers charter JetStars, they are really doing it on government business and are not just off on a frolic of their own, as my colleague in the legal profession will understand?
[DOT] (M20)


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, this is an allegation and a very vague one. I have challenged the Hon. Member to give us a specific example of abuse or infringement of the guidelines. The guidelines are clear, they exist and we follow them. Unless we have something definite about infringement of these guidelines, no comments are necessary at all. It is the Government's intention to enforce these guidelines, to see to it that they are observed, and we believe that to date, all Ministers have observed them.
If the Hon. Member has a specific accusation, if he has a blatant example, let him tell the House. In that case we will investigate.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday 1 directed some questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They dealt with possible conflict of interest, again involving a considerable amount of the taxpayers' money. In the absence of the Minister I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Deputy Minister of Energy had an opportunity to make inquiries with regard to my question and concerns and, if so, can he indicate the results of those inquiries? Also, can he indicate whether corrective action will be taken so that these perceived conflict of interest cases will not occur in the future?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the matter is still under investigation and that I can give no report at this stage.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. There is an obvious perception that some individuals are profiteering unnecessarily at the taxpayers' expense. Does the Prime Minister plan to come forward with concrete solutions to these concerns by implementing a firm set of rules dealing with conflict of interest, not only for those within the Public Service but also for those employed in federal Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, such rules exist. They exist within the Public Service, for Members of Parliament and, by extension, for anyone who works for the Crown. I repeat, this particular matter is under investigation. I cannot comment on it any further. In so far as promulgating conflict of interest guidelines in the future is concerned, the Hon. Member will know that just about a week ago we received the report on conflict of interest and the various guidelines, a report I asked of the committee chaired

May 17, 1984

by the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. I think it would be proper for Parliament to consider that report and for a future Government to act on it.


TASK FORCE REPORT
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us when that task force report that he referred to will be tabled in the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to table it very soon. The delay cannot be more than just a few weeks. I certainly want to see it tabled well before the middle of June, but I cannot give a precise date. I will take notice of the question and will attempt to answer it at the beginning of the week.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.

Two offshore drilling rigs are now required on the East Coast. This project could create 1,000 new jobs in Canada. Could the Minister inform the House why the Government is maintaining a tax system under which oil companies can obtain subsidies to purchase offshore drilling rigs in Japan or in Korea?
Why use the Canadian taxpayer's money to create jobs abroad, when we can build rigs right here in Canada, in Lauzon, Quebec or Saint John, New Brunswick?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for asking his question in French, but 1 did not really grasp what he said, and I am not sure whether it is something that concerns my Department. If it does, I did not understand every aspect of his question. I think he asked a question about Government funds being used to support a project to purchase required equipment abroad instead of doing so in Canada. I had the impression, but I may be wrong, that the Hon. Member was referring to a program that is administered by another Department, and not by mine. If he is agreeable, I am prepared to take his question as notice and provide an answer later on.
Oral Questions


USE OF SUBSIDIES TO CREATE JOBS OUTSIDE CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain my point again, this time in the other official language, for the Minister's sake.

The program I am referring to is the PIP grant program. The Minister is responsible for employment. He is a Minister of the Crown. In terms of his responsibility for jobs, does he agree with the policy which makes it possible for companies in Canada to obtain subsidies through the taxpayers of Canada to purchase equipment which, if produced here rather than abroad, could mean 1,000 jobs for Canadians? In other words, should Canadian workers through the tax system be providing subsidies to create jobs in Japan or Korea when those projects could be carried out, to name only two places, in the region of Quebec City or Saint John? Why are we not using Canadian taxpayers' money to create jobs for Canadians instead of abroad?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The question was better in the other official language.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it is true the question is a bit more comprehensible in the other official language than it was in French. It still deals with a program which is essentially the PIP program, which is not within my area of jurisdiction. If the Hon. Member is asking whether it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to expend public funds to create employment in Canada, the answer is yes. We are already doing that. We are spending over $1 billion of government funds this year for direct employment creation within the Canadian economy. If he is asking whether I support the PIP program as it is applied by the Minister responsible for it, the answer is that up until this point, yes I do.


John Edward Broadbent: So much for Canadian jobs.


REQUEST THAT SUBSIDIES BE USED FOR CREATION OF JOBS IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, who has ultimate responsibility for this program. I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of all the details of what goes on in his Government. The Government's PIP program enables corporations to get a subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer if they purchase equipment abroad, even if that equipment is available in Canada. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Canadian taxpayer should be providing subsidies for the creation of jobs abroad, especially when those jobs could be provided here in Canada, whether in Quebec, New Brunswick, or shipyards in British Columbia? Does it not make sense to abandon those subsidies for the creation of work abroad, and ensure that any subsidy used for the creation of jobs is used in Canada when the product can be produced in this country?

May 17, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is starting an ideal position, I would agree with him. I do not know if he is thinking of any particular case, but we would have to look at whether in practice you were in effect creating jobs or not. If the effect of forcing a corporation that is the recipient of grants to buy some of its supplies in Canada would be that the corporation cannot operate because it is not competitive, I would say that is a case where we had better keep the corporation competitive and operating, creating the jobs it can, rather than deny the very rationale of the grants, which is to create jobs, by forcing the company to take them on conditions which make it inoperable.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Canadian dollar is a factor that has led to sales of fish from European countries in the American market. This has depressed the price, and has to some degree tended to set the price and force the Canadian price downward. That, of course, is a problem that is difficult to address because it does involve the fluctuation of international currencies. The question of what can possibly be done by way of support prices is one which I would be happy to explore with the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the Hon. Member.

John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the same Minister in the absence of 20 other Cabinet Ministers who are out around the country and are not here doing the job they are supposed to do.

ft

..


SALE OF COD BLOCKS TO UNITED STATES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries, but some 20 Cabinet Ministers are missing.


Some Hon. Members:: Where's Brian?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is Pinocchio? In the absence of 20 Ministers, my question is directed to the Minister who is responsible for foreign trade. That is Gerry Regan.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sorry.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is Brian?


John Carnell Crosbie: I will ask my question when the clowns cease their braying, Mr. Speaker.
I trust that the Hon. Minister will be aware that the sale of cod blocks in the United States is endangered by the fact that the price has now descended to 85 cents a pound, the lowest price it has been in many years. The entire Canadian fishing industry is in danger.
Could the Minister advise the House what he sees as being the prospects for the sale of fishery products, particularly cod blocks, in the United States? Is the Government contemplating using the Fishery Prices Support Board to attempt to assist producers and fishermen so that the price of cod blocks does not cause a cessation of the entire eastern Canadian fishery this year?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has mentioned the problem of fluctuating prices for Canadian fish, and particularly for cod blocks in the American market. As a representative of Newfoundland he will be keenly aware of the different factors that affect the price in the Boston market, in particular.
I am sure he is aware of the fact that the softness of European currencies in relation to the strong level of the


Some Hon. Members:: Where is Brian?


John Carnell Crosbie: Because of the failure-the Minister is having difficulty hearing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Because of the failure of cod block prices this year, the cod fishery in Newfoundland is being endangered. Many hundreds of fishermen may not find a firm to which they may sell cod this year. The Government has a heavy fiancial involvement in Fishery Products International Limited, as well as in National Sea Products. Is the Government prepared to advance further sums of money to Fishery Products International Limited so that it may meet its losses and continue to buy all codfish offerings from the inshore and offshore fishery of Newfoundland, thus ensuring that there will be a market for fishermen this year?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer the hon. gentleman's question in the presence of 11 empty seats in the front benches of the Conservative opposition, at a time when the Leader of the Opposition is not present and they have a total of about 35 or 40 Members in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair would simply observe that the practice of calling attention to the presence or absence of Hon. Members is not the custom of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I certainly follow the lead of the Chair in that regard, but I had been following the example set by my esteemed colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
May I turn more directly to the subject matter by saying that I am keenly aware of the importance of the cod fishery to the welfare and the survival of the people of Newfoundland inasmuch as some of my ancestors in Newfoundland depended upon that livelihood for a very long period of time. I might simply add that I am sure that in those days my ancestors had

May 17, 1984

the opportunity to use the services of the merchants of Water Street who, of course, were the ancestors of the Hon. Member.
I would only say to the Hon. Member that the question of any further direct support for the company that he mentioned, the existence of which has been saved by the policy of the Government which gave it a very generous infusion of funds, is one that I would want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I would be happy to do that for my hon. friend.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Revenue. The Privacy Commissioner has completed his report on the attempt by Revenue Canada to gain access to the computerized data base in the City of Kitchener. He found that if the Department had secured this information it might very well have violated Sections 10 and 11 of the Privacy Act, and he said that the Department's request to Kitchener was characterized by casualness and carelessness. I would like to ask the Acting Minister what specific actions the Department proposes to take as a result of the Privacy Commissioner's report.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister is not present in the House today, I will take notice of the question and bring it to his attention.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly an improvement on the answers we normally receive.


DEPARTMENT'S POWERS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister because it is a concern of such importance. I would do so if I could have the Prime Minister's attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it appears as if the lights are on but nobody is home over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Henry Perrin Beatty: In view of the fact that it should now have become as evident to the Government, as it is to most observers, that Section 231 of the Income Tax Act gives the Department such sweeping powers of search and seizure that it poses a very grave threat to the civil liberties of Canadians, is the Prime Minister prepared to undertake to have introduced in the House, prior to summer recess, amendments to Section 231 of the Act which would constrain those powers of search and
Oral Questions
seizure and bring them back into line with the basic civil liberties of Canadian taxpayers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member complimented the Parliamentary Secretary for his very good answer and said that it was an improvement on previous answers. I would only want to echo the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, and thereby share in the compliments of the Hon. Member.


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On February 14 I raised and documented in the House the matter of a grant of $583,000 that he made to the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture. I now have in my possession two letters from the National Congress of Italian Canadians, Toronto District, indicating that the Minister met with that group and agreed to scale the grant down to one-third of its original amount, and that he would meet with Mr. Joe Volpe to work out the details. Would the Minister confirm that he had that agreement with the Italian Canadians, and would he also confirm that he changed his mind and is now giving them the entire grant of $583,000?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. gentleman the confirmation that he seeks. It is true that I met with the group to which he referred and we discussed whether or not it would be possible for there to be a reduction in the amount of the grant. I indicated that I would support the reduction if it was possible for the various interested parties to work out an agreement about it. However, at no point did I say that I would impose such a reduction on the Alliance which received the grant.
The Hon. Member is incorrect in asking me to confirm his comment. I cannot do that because that is not an accurate picture of the commitment I made. Many weeks ago we did indicate that the original grant was confirmed after not one but two assessments and reviews were undertaken by the civil servants in my Department to see whether or not there was justification for the grant that was given. The report made by my Department's officials indicated to me that indeed there was such justification.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL CONFIRMATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: On February 14
the Minister said:
I can assure him-

May 17, 1984
Oral Questions
That is me.
-that there is not a political determination in the decision-making process when I approve or reject a proposal or project.
Would the Minister confirm that Mr. Joe Volpe, the person he spoke of meeting about the grant, on May 11 declared that he was a leader of a block of delegates who threw their support to him as leadership candidate for the Liberal Party? Would the Minister also explain to the House, and to the Canadian people, the ethics of his spending $583,000 of our money to buy 25 votes for his leadership aspirations?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John (Moody) Roberts: 
PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ITALIAN MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor, Senator Susanna Agnelli, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Italy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTATION OF KOREAN AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of your earlier admonition I will go directly to the Minister responsible for International Trade. The Government has apparently already rejected the automobile task force study in favour of negotiated automobile restraint sales by Japan in Canada. This being so, may I ask the Minister what justification there is in the Government's encouragement of the dumping, duty free, of Korean automobiles into Canada? Is it anything less than something which would impair the negotiations with Japan? And is it anything but contrary to Canada's idea of fairness and fair trade?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to Joe-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -to the Hon. Member, that the situation is much more complex than the way he has presented it. Canada has always, like many other developed countries, given some preferential tariff treatment to those countries which are undeveloped and are attempting to pull themselves up by their own boot straps. This has been a general policy. Korea has benefited from that policy in a number of ways. In the past it did not export any motor cars to Canada. Indeed, it was only recently that it started to do so. This year the Pony has entered the Canadian market and it is anticipated that fewer than 10,000 will be sold in Canada in the current year.
If Korea becomes a very serious entrant into the Canadian market, the question of how those special policies affect it as against other exporters of motor vehicles to Canada, will have to be very seriously examined by the Government. There is no question about that. However, we are in the position that at the present time the only quota restrictions on the importation of vehicles into Canada are those that apply to Japan, based upon the fact that the Japanese had achieved such a serious percentage incursion into the Canadian market without having made any significant investments here.
What we want to do in relation to the Japanese is to continue our negotiations, which the Minister of Industry has been carrying on, in order to bring about Japanese investment in our market, if it is going to share in it to such a large degree.
Other European car manufacturers which have a very small place in our market, like the Koreans, are not subject to quantitative restrictions.


EFFECT ON CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I want to remind him that jobs and unemployment are still at the top on the agenda of concerns of Canadians. Might I also add that the concern of the automobile industry is a matter of major importance. Where is there any fairness in admitting into this country these Korean automobiles which sell for less here than in the country of their origin? Will the Minister keep in mind that there is an automobile industry out there which is concerned with the inroads made into our domestic market by the Japanese and other foreign manufacturers, especially when I hear the Minister accepting the position that the Government will encourage the dumping of automobiles into Canada?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member heard me encouraging the dumping of cars into Canada, then he was listening to the wrong sound system. I believe he was tuned into the wrong station. That is not the case at all. And it is the first suggestion I have heard that there is any element of dumping in the pricing of the Korean Ponys in this market.
However, in relation to the reference which the Hon. Member made to the Canadian automobile industry, I believe if he takes the time to go and speak to the principal people
May 17, 1984

involved in that most vital of industries, they will tell him how far employment has come back in that industry as a result of the policies of this Government. They will point out to the Hon. Member the phenomenal increase in the number of motor vehicles sold this year over last year. I believe they will also tell him that the Government is working very closely with the industry, and the unions, in seeing to it that they continue to receive, for a period of time, the protection which is necessary while they modernize and become even more competitive than they have been in the past.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently the Minister of Transport said that people should come first, and railways second. In the light of that statement may I ask the Minister of Agriculture how he can ensure that western Canadian farmers can be guaranteed that claim by the Liberal Party when grain freight rates are rising so dramatically, contrary to the projections under the Western Grain Transportation Act, and much to the benefit of the Government and the railways?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member forgets some aspects and parts of that Bill which are very important. That Bill also allows farmers to ship speciality crops. Where previously they have paid as high as $50 a tonne to ship to Thunder Bay or Vancouver, the rate now, Mr. Speaker, for those crops, including canola seed- which is second in importance to wheat-costs $7.50. From Saskatoon to Thunder Bay, and from Saskatoon to Vancouver, it costs $5.50. It cost over $45 a tonne before, so there are tremendous savings and benefits there. The increases the Hon. Member says are involved are not as great as he intimates to the House, according to the figures I have.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am clearly disappointed with the answer of the Minister and his approach. What we are looking for is some assurance from the Minister that the farmers' interests will be protected from open-ended, escalated rail freight rates. How can the Minister ensure that this will be done? And how can farmers have any confidence in the Liberal Party when the Minister of Transport is serving as the policy adviser to Mr. John Turner, who is an active director of the CPR; when the former Chairman of the CPR, Mr. Ian Sinclair, was appointed to the Senate by the Liberal Government, and when you have Mr. Jack Horner, the former Chairman of CNR, heading the Grain Transportation Agency? I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is taking this into account. Is he recommending any action to ensure that the interests of the producers will be preserved?
Oral Questions
And what action, if any, is the Minister going to take before the end of June?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my very action in entering a certain contest should be enough to show the Hon. Member the concern I have for farmers.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It has to do with a memo from the Ontario Regional Director to the Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Regional Operations. It concerns the grants batching process as it pertains to the whole area of multiculturalism. The memo indicates that comments on Ontario's September and November batches, which is the money going out to various groups in Ontario, would indicate that the headquarter's review is neither coherent nor accurate. It goes on to say that the strongest reservations about the use to which the batching process might be put appear to have come to pass. Instead, a headquarters second guessing process has been institutionalized without any upfront checks and balances, and this has resulted in a situation where grants are inconsistent and inaccurately assessed on a minimum of information, a potential embarrassment to the Minister if the groups are given poor reasons for rejection. My question is an obvious one. What is being done to rectify this rather shabby situation?


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that memo and I am somewhat surprised at its contents. As with any federated organization, and the Government of Canada obviously runs its operations in that way in that we have regional offices across the country, from time to time there are creative disagreements or tensions between decisions taken in Ottawa and those taken in the regions. This is a normal course of events in Canadian federalism, and it may very well be that someone feels there is perhaps a little imbalance and perhaps too much direction from the Minister's office or our officials here in Ottawa. It is something I totally reject, but I certainly would be prepared to look at the memo and discuss it with the Hon. Member, or report back to him before the committee dealing with the Estimates meets next week. We might want to have an in depth discussion at that point.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the memo is not exactly new. It is dated December 16, 1983. It is from the Ontario Regional Director to the Assistant Under-Secretary of State. If nothing has been done to change this rather shabby process in the past, I suggest very strongly that something should be done.

May 17, 1984
Oral Questions


DEPARTMENT'S WORK IN MANITOBA
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, in western Canada, especially in the Manitoba area, there is a great deal of concern that grants which normally go to various community projects have not been forthcoming. This has caused all kinds of disruption to language and other heritage programs in Manitoba. If the Minister is going to check on what is a reasonably old memo, will he also take a very close look at what is happening in Manitoba? It is not a good situation, and his Department certainly has to bear the majority of the responsibility.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the criticism implied in the Hon. Member's question. As far as I am concerned, the memo in question, and I have said I have not seen it, represents perhaps the opinion of one regional director. I will have to discuss it with our officials to see whether or not it is indeed a serious concern of his. It has not been raised in a detailed way with me, so I suspect it was a particular feeling at a particular point in time.
On the question of Manitoba in general, the Hon. Member should know, being from Manitoba, that the regional office of the Secretary of State is one of the most creative regional offices of any government Department. It has done an outstanding job over the past two years, not only in multicultural-ism but in other areas. I find it somewhat odd that a Member from Manitoba would, in a sense, be criticizing the work being done by officials in Manitoba. That is essentially what he is doing. As far as I am concerned, the interests of multicultural-ism are being very well attended to, especially in Manitoba where a leadership role has been taken by a number of people at the municipal level and in voluntary organizations, especially in the City of Winnipeg.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. In the employment programs funded by his Department in recent years there have always been two or three projects which tried to meet the needs of the elderly and sick by providing a service to cut their lawns, put on storm windows, take off the screens, and do a little painting. Of all the grants approved for summer work this year, there is only one program which meets those needs. That program is already telling people that they will have to wait for weeks before they can get the service they always got in the past. Would the Minister look at that situation and possibly find some money to fund some of these projects which operated so successfully until this year?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to
the Summer Canada programs which are administered by my colleague, the Minister of State for Youth. I will be happy to forward his representation to her so that she can consider it and reply to him directly.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister tell his colleague that there were projects, such as Work 80 and Community Home Services, which really went out of their way to meet and satisfy the needs of people? These people are phoning all Members of Parliament with hysterical and very well founded fears that they are not going to get the service they received in the past. We are not saying the programs funded for this year are necessarily bad; we are simply saying that they have not met an important need in our cities.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to provide my colleague with the views the Hon. Member has expressed and the representations he has received from the public. I shall do that.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the questions asked at the outset of Question Period with respect to the guidelines he laid down for Liberal leadership candidates who are members of his Cabinet. I know he has spoken to them and given them guidelines with respect to the use of government jets. Will he undertake to investigate the blatant misuse of government jets by his Minister of Justice? As an example, yesterday the Minister was with Premier Lee of Prince Edward Island from 8.30 until 9.00 a.m. discussing Senate reform. He then spent the rest of the day meeting delegates from Hillsborough and Cardigan. He had a meeting with a Mr. Joe Ghiz, and then flew to New Brunswick to meet with delegates from Northumberland-Miramichi.
If I give him the timetable of the Minister of Justice, will he investigate whether that Minister and others are abusing their privileges by using government jets for purely political reasons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will look into the matter. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member does what he suggests and sends me the timetable. However, just listening to his version of the facts, I feel compelled to say that I personally asked the Minister of Justice to see the Premiers of all provinces to discuss Senate reform. This was a decision taken several months ago, and it was to follow on the tabling of the report of the Joint Committee on Senate Reform. Therefore, that he would be travelling
May 17, 1984

on a government aircraft is something I find not only justifiable but demanded in the circumstances.
I am puzzled at how the Elon. Member would suggest the Minister conduct himself assuming he is in a province and has not been able to get an appointment with another Premier for the next 24 hours. Would the Hon. Member suggest that he should come back to Ottawa at government expense, sit in his office, and then fly again to the same area at government expense? It would seem to me this would entail a greater expenditure of public funds than staying in the area and seeing some friends, or people he would hope become friends. I am just thinking aloud, Mr. Speaker. I am curious how the Hon. Member would advise me to refine the guidelines in a case like this. Should the Minister be ordered back to Ottawa at government expense, and then fly out in the same direction?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Halifax West has been seeking to be recognized for some time.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDUCT INVESTIGATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in about two months time the Prime Minister will understand that we have commercial service, with Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airlines, because he will be using them himself. The next meeting of the Minister of Justice was today at three in the afternoon. There were two commercial flights available to the Minister, and he did not have to come back to Ottawa.
Will the Prime Minister investigate this matter, and if in fact the bulk of the Minister's time has been spent with respect to political activity on his behalf and that of the Liberal Party, will he ask for a reimbursement from the Minister, as a very minimum, for this blatant abuse of the use of government aircraft in the pursuit of his political activity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, l am sure the Hon. Member is attempting to be helpful. However, if there were commercial flights, even I would know it. As a suggestion, I would inquire whether that would be a wise use of ministerial time. If the Hon. Member is correct, he would, I suppose, suggest that every Minister should fly by government aircraft when there is a commercial flight. As he would know from when he was a Minister himself and used government aircraft rather generously, the factor of time is involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Oh, no. The use was cut by 75 per cent. Check the records.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to the two questions, Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the first. I said I would look into the facts and invited the Hon. Member to send me whatever knowledge he has of them. The second question was a hypothetical one.


PUBLIC WORKS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It is with regard to that mysterious office complex for the city of Halifax. As the Minister knows, it was announced in April of 1983 as a special recovery project. It was to be a $50 million building. One year later it was reduced to a $30 million building. When are the 1,000 Nova Scotians who were promised jobs on the construction of this office complex by his colleague, the Minister of International Trade, going to be put to work? Is there really going to be an office complex?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some difficulty getting final clearance to the title of the land. I must express amazement that the Hon. Member's political bickering extends to the point where he would deprive his own region of a very important government project.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will allow me to take over his Department, I will have the office complex going in 30 days.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITE EXPROPRIATION
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, if the office complex was planned to the point where the Minister of International Trade could stand up and show models of it, why did the federal Government not even own the land in question? Why is it now expropriating the land and having the expropriation challenged in the courts of law? Why did it not consider these matters before it announced the complex?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Hon. Member is able to explain to the Halifax Herald, which is very regionalistic in its approach to these stories, why he is not helping us solve the problem. The reality is that I was personally disappointed that a public body which should have co-operated with us to try to find a proper site, did not help us.

May 17, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Blaikie


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) on Wednesday, May 16, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On April 6 last the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) raised a point of order relating to the Question Period and invited the Chair to share its thoughts with the House on the conduct of that part of our daily proceedings. He said:
1 do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are simply letting us slide until we muster the will to discipline ourselves. That may be a legitimate strategy. However, I, for one, Mr. Speaker, would urge you to use your role as Speaker to discipline the Question Period. If you do not feel people should be allowed supplementary questions, do not allow them.
Again on May 9, 1984, when the Chair did not allow a supplementary to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill invited the Chair to tell the House if it was changing the rules as they pertain to Question Period. While it is tempting for the Chair to make a comprehensive ruling on the conduct of Question Period, the present occupant is well aware that, without the co-operation of Members, the Chair's responsibility to maintain order is much more difficult. I would much rather seek the co-operation of all Members.
I will, however, deal with the use of supplementary questions which has been of concern to me for some time. I think it is timely that this matter be addressed. On May 9, in quoting from Beauchesne's Citation 371, I reaffirmed the principle that the extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker. I also said that I would discourage supplementary questions which are not supplementary but which are, in fact, additional even though related questions.
I think I should remind the House what, under our practice, constitutes a supplementary question. There is a growing practice, after a first question has been answered, to ask a new, related question, or another question which is an expanded form of the original one. There is also a growing tendency to ask a Minister one question and to direct a supplementary to another Minister because it deals with the same subject matter.
Mr. Speaker Michener, in his statement to the House on February 26, 1959, qualified supplementary questions as "a matter of grace". It seems his comment was inspired by Speaker Lowther who laid down the rule for the British
House. At column 41 of the House of Commons debates for July 5, 1915, Speaker Lowther is reported to have said:
-all supplementary questions are irregular and are not provided for at all in any Standing Order. It is entirely a matter of grace.
I may say generally that the object of supplementary questions is to elucidate any ambiguity in the reply of a Minister or to seek further information if he can give it;-
On April 14, 1975 Mr. Speaker Jerome, at page 440 of Hansard, defined a supplementary question in the following terms:
The supplementary question is a follow-up device flowing from the response and ought to be a precise question put directly and immediately to the Minister without any further statement.
At page 346 of Erskine May's Twentieth Edition we find the following:
A supplementary question may refer only to the answer out of which it immediately arises, must not be read or be too long-
I also wish to remind Hon. Members that supplementary questions should rarely be preceded by a preamble or contain any argument. Since the supplementary question flows from the answer to the original question, it should normally not require explanation or preamble. It should be brief and to the point. If, in answering, a Minister claims that another Member of the Cabinet is concerned with the subject matter of a question, then a supplementary to another Minister may be allowed; but the redirection of a supplementary question to another Minister must be clearly linked to the answer to the first question. It is not sufficient to claim that the supplementary question to another Minister is on the same subject matter as the principal question. There must be obvious cause from the answer of the first Minister for the Chair to allow a supplementary question to be redirected to another Minister.
In concluding my remarks I will quote a few words from Speaker Lamoureux who, on September 14, 1971, faced the same issue and sought the co-operation and support of the House in saying:
I recognize the importance of the matter and the right of Hon. Members to ask supplementaries, but the rules are clear. Supplementaries are within the competence of the Chair; and when the Chair feels that we have reached a point when other members should be given a chance to ask questions, Hon. Members should try as far as possible to co-operate and give the Chair an opportunity to move on to another member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on the usual matter relating to House business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon the Government House Leader to give us the proposed order of business for tomorrow and possibly to the end of next week.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that this week the House Leaders had fruitful and productive meetings. It looks like the next week will be productive for
May 17, 1984

Parliament. The order of the Bills which I shall outline is important. The number of Bills which I will outline flows from the discussions we had.
Tomorrow we will be dealing with the following Bills in this order: C-4, C-23, C-5 and C-31. On Tuesday we will deal with Bill C-24. On Wednesday we will deal with Bills C-ll, C-16, C-8, C-7 and C-14. 1 designate next Thursday as an Opposition Day. Next Friday Bill C-33 will be dealt with.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information which we have just received. There have been statements from all three Parties with regard to the need to obtain quick passage of Bill C-34 dealing with the Canada Labour Code. Would he be amenable to the suggestion that we agree to one speaker per Party at second reading? The Bill could then go to committee for careful but speedy consideration, with an understanding that that particular piece of legislation would in fact become law prior to the House rising at the end of June, and that he take whatever steps he deems necessary to then place that Bill on a priority listing to ensure that it will in fact be dealt with?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a matter to be negotiated in a regular House Leaders' meeting. The Hon. Member knows from my answer on the floor of the House yesterday that certainly the Government is willing to consider any serious offer or proposal made by the Opposition Parties in order to dispose of Bill C-34 quickly. The idea of having one speaker per Party to send it to committee is acceptable to the Government, except that we would like to have more precision from the Opposition Parties about how we will be dealing with the report stage and third reading stage.
I cannot give a commitment about passing the whole Bill before the end of June unless I have a firm agreement on a very short debate for the report stage and third reading. The Hon. Member has not been very specific about that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. House Leader does in fact raise a legitimate point. I want to suggest to him that if we could get agreement to have this Bill dealt with speedily at second reading and dealt with speedily at committee stage, I would be prepared to enter into negotiations on a House order to deal with the Bill at report and third reading stage that I think would satisfy the need to have the Bill dealt with expeditiously.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as I said, usually we negotiate or make deals in a regular House Leaders' meeting. The Hon. Member will understand that no deal is possible without the participation of the Official Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to stand at this time to support the point of view of the Government House Leader that normally if negotiations are being carried on with respect to House business, these matters will be discussed in the course of our deliberations, which prove to be successful from time to time. It is a well known fact that the NDP
Business of the House
supports the Liberal Party on almost all of their legislation. It is not necessary for the Members for Hamilton Mountain to stand up and reaffirm this publicly.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Government House Leader that my recollection of what was said by the absent Leader of the Conservative Party was that he was in support of the principles contained within the amendments proposed to the Canada Labour Code.
With regard to negotiations, I am not attempting to negotiate; I am doing what I recall was done by the House Leader for the Conservatives in the case of the grain stabilization Bill. I am making an offer that I think perhaps cannot be refused.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Government House Leader will recall that there was a promise in the Throne Speech that the guaranteed income supplement for single old age pensioners would be increased by $25 a month. It is all very well to list 11 Bills on which he places a priority. I understand that this will require a Bill to amend the Pension Act. Where does he put this measure in his priorities?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think we are prepared to go even further. We are thinking in terms of increasing the GIS by $50 a month. We intend to introduce such legislation before the end of June for sure.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make an inquiry of the Government House Leader. I had hoped to be able to raise this question in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture but unfortunately he had to leave. It is with reference to Bill C-23, the advance payments for prairie grains.
He will recognize that that applies only to the grains produced within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps he will recall that in 1976, I believe, some comparable legislation was approved for the advance payment for crops produced outside the Canadian Wheat Board, primarily corn and beans.
Obviously we are in full support of Bill C-23. We are somewhat concerned that the twin Bill which should apply to grains outside the Canadian Wheat Board should go through the House in tandem with that Bill. Otherwise there will be a situation where there will be a greater advance payment available for producers of similar grains in one part of the country, yet there will be the old standard of advanced payments for the producers of other crops, particularly in Ontario, the Province of Quebec and Atlantic Canada.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I will make sure that the Minister of Agriculture will be made aware of them. We will take them very seriously. If there is anything to be adapted or corrected, we will do it with pleasure. For the time being, we have had a House Leaders' meeting and agreed to dispose of Bill C-23 very quickly next week. I want to assure the Hon. Member that his concerns will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.
3834

May 17, 1984
Supplementary Estimates (A), 1984-85 PRIVILEGE


MR. SCOTT (V1CTOR1A-HALIBURTON)-RECOGNITION OF MEMBERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, if this is the proper time, I have a question of privilege. It relates to something you said earlier when making your ruling. That is the problem with Question Period and other Members being totally ignored. I have watched this for some time and have raised this issue before. As a matter of fact, I have spoken to you about it, Mr. Speaker.
I have every confidence in you and would suggest that you throw away the slips that you are given by the House Leader in charge and go on your own merits. I believe we would probably have a more even distribution. That is a suggestion which I have to make to you, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always open to suggestions.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), by filing with the Clerk of the House on Wednesday, May 16, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
[Editor's Note: For report referred to above, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1984-85
Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, may I depart briefly from custom and point out that we have the honour to receive the first formal message in this House from our new Governor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1985, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I move, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 63:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) 1984-85, tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
Since there is a detailed allocation of the estimates to the committees in the list, if it is agreeable with the House I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Secretary of State Vote 30a To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Vote 15a Fisheries and Oceans Votes la, 5a and 10a To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs National Health and Welfare Votes 46a and 47a To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Solicitor General Vote la
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 5a, 10a and 15a To the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs Secretary of State Vote 10a
And that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours of the aforementioned reference to the said Standing Joint Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and in both official languages, a document entitled "New Canadian Air Policy", dated May 10, 1984.

May 17, 1984


PETITION
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
[Stage Direction]
-the following motion:

Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from some 331 citizens of southern Alberta, many of whom I know. This petition is very broadly based. It calls for an extension of hours at the Del Bonita and Carway customs ports of entry from the United States. It asks for longer hours during the winter months. The current situation where they close early causes a great inconvenience to many people including businessmen, individuals and farmers. It is critical that the Government seriously consider this petition. I am hoping that my fellow colleagues will write to the Minister in this respect.


EXECUTION OF MASS MURDERERS ACT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an Act respecting the execution of mass murderers.
That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to study and report on the following questions relating to the "New Canadian Air Policy" as announced by the Minister of Transport on May 10, 1984:
(1)	At what pace should the process toward the elimination of regulation be pursued?
(2)	How should the Aeronautics Act be amended to make it consistent with a more permissive regulatory approach, and in particular
(a)	how should the entry test of "public convenience and necessity" be
revised?
(b)	what provisions, if any, should govern the remaining controls on
pricing?
(c)	what special regulation is needed of airline mergers and acquisitions,
and of foreign ownership?
(3)	Should further instalments of liberalization occur at predetermined intervals to stimulate adjustment and facilitate planning, or should any further changes be preceded by reviews, perhaps at pre-set dates?
(4)	Should Air Canada be broken up and/or privatized to improve the company's efficiency and to give smaller, privately-owned airlines a more equal opportunity to compete?
(5)	As further regulatory liberalization proceeds, is there a need for direct operating subsidies to protect communities against loss of service as a result of regulatory change and for special labour protection provisions to protect airline employees against a related loss of employment?
(6)	Does the Minister's working definition of northern Canada in the new Canadian air policy reflect the needs of the communities in northern Canada; and


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce a Bill respecting the execution of mass murderers, under which any person found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt of killing ten or more human beings will be executed by hanging. Clifford Robert Olson is at the top of the list.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary and after approval by the Clerk of the House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada when the House is not sitting in relation to the "New Canadian Air Policy", as announced by the Minister of Transport, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee; and
That the Committee report back to the House by November 30, 1984.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, consultations having been held with representatives of all Parties in the House, I now wish to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pem-broke (Mr. Hopkins)-


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 18, 19, 191 (Revised) and 745.

May 17, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: What was the amount of the postal rate subsidy to the book industry in 1982?


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows: The 1982-83 publishers book rate and library book rate subsidy was $54.5 million.


Mr. Herbert: What was the amount of the postal rate subsidy to the magazine industry in 1982?


Normand Lapointe: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows: The 1982-83 newspapers and periodicals subsidy was $165.5 million.
CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED BY TREASURY BOARD Question No. 191 (revised)-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Treasury Board and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Youth)):: In so far as the following are concerned; Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; Office of the Comptroller General of Canada: see below.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat:
1. (a) 1981-82	(b) 1982-83	
(i) 37	(i) 44	
(ii) 5516,587.00	(ii) $383,184.04	
2. 1981-82		
(a)	(b)	(c)Eric A. Milligan	$ 62,900.00	To study and report on matters related to the government's program on Regulatory Reform.Margot Priest	$ 55,200.00	To study and report on matters related to the government's program on Regulatory Reform.Hay Associates Canada Ltd.	$193,105.59	To develop a method of evaluating Air Traffic Controller positions and for the development of appropriate salary levels, premiums and insured benefits.Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby	$ 22,000.00	To conduct a Preference Audit and Climate Review of Federal
Public Service managers allocated or likely to be allocated to the management category, etc.
Systemhouse Ltd.	$ 25,000.00	To conduct an audit of the input aspects of the Official Languages Information System (OLIS).
1982-83		
Margo Priest	$ 15,400.00	To study and report on matters related to the government's program on Regulatory Reform.Eric A. Milligan	$ 68,821.41	To study and report on matters related to the government's program on Regulatory Reform.Vicor Spassov Editorial Services Ltd.	$ 25,200.00	To edit, format, indexing of manuscript for Access Register publication.Words Associated	$ 25,200.00	To edit, format verification and indexing of French manuscript for Access Register publication.McGill University	$ 30,129.73	To carry out on behalf of Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance an investigation of employee health complaints at Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere.Management Research Consulting	$ 22,976.21	To develop Phase II and IV of training programs for Human Resources.Office of the Comptroller General:	1. (a) 1981-82	(b) 1982-83	(i) 37	(i) 36	(ii) $384,913.00	(ii) $246,709.00	2. 1981-82	(a)	(b)	(c)Abt Associates of Canada	$ 25,000.00	To undertake an evaluation of the Financial Officer Recruitment Development Program and to prepare a written report.Coopers and Lybrand	$ 66,484.50	To provide professional advice and assistance in the review of program expenditure plans and of other documents pertaining to the revision of the estimates project.Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company	$ 31,548.55	To assist in the preparation of a discussion paper for review by Cabinet which would identify the need for a comprehensive review of the Financial Administration Act.Price Waterhouse	$ 43,500.00	To review and report on the present financing of each Crown corporation and to propose action where necessary to adjust their financing to ensure consistency with current policy and also revised scheduling for such crown corporations.Touche Ross & Co.	$ 29,025.75	To develop a practical set of guidelines on cost determination for use by government departments.Peat, Marwick and Partners	$ 20,000.00	To prepare a written discussion paper on program evaluation methodologies and their appropriateness.
May 17, 1984

1982-83
Ernst & Whinney
Allan Bennett & Associates
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company
Woods Gordon


[Stage Direction]
To conduct an evaluation of the Implementation Assistance Program and to produce a final report on the study on or before September 1, 1982.
To provide editorial services to 20 Program Expenditure Plans as well as to provide advice and assistance to departmental editors in the preparation of their plans.
To assist in assessing the need for a review of the Financial Administration Act.
Development of Professional Development Program for Management Practices Branch.
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Atlantic Development Council and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Council meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. No. Legislative authority for the Atlantic Development Council was repealed on December 7, 1983, with the proclamation of Section 22 of the Government Organization Act, 1983.
2. The Council was not operational in 1982-1983.
Supply
to collect these duties is at least equal to the amount of money we collect.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like an eminently sensible question. The answer is soon.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise again to ask about a question of long standing; it has been on the Order Paper for some three years now. It asks what is the increase in real terms in the expenditures of the Department of National Defence, including statutory costs, and expressed in percentages, for each fiscal year from 1970-71 to 1979-80.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows that that answer has been prepared. One can only assume that Ministers are refusing to have it presented in Parliament because it will contradict the information they have been including in their speeches about Canada's effort to support defence. They have been exaggerating in their speeches, and answers of the type prepared by the department would contradict them. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that that is why they have not tabled the answer in three years. There can be no other reason, can there?


John Leslie Evans: I am sure that is not the case, but I will look into the matter for the Hon. Member and try to get an answer to him as quickly as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning its commitment to alleviate regional economic disparities and thereby encouraging continued economic inequality between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country through a policy of gutting the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, slashing investment in regional development, and downgrading, for political purposes, federal-provincial development agreements.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I presume that stubbornness at some point along the line has to be accepted by even the best of us, as a result of the refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to recognize the historic use of a starred question and their failure to recognize its place in our parliamentary process. This leaves me no other alternative but to ask when I will obtain an answer to my question No. 699. It deals with the amount of money being raised with respect to duties paid by foreign-registered vessels operating off our coast, so that we might understand whether or not the amount of money spent trying


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) introduced this Opposition motion with regard to regional economic disparities, specifically in the Atlantic provinces. I congratulate the Hon. Member, with some reservation, for bringing forward this subject. I congratulate him because such an important issue has not been raised or focused on earlier by his Party, and, I do so with reservations because he uses the words "condemns the Government" in his motion. I cannot agree with him when we analyze the millions of dollars this Government has designated, approved and expended in the Atlantic provinces. Thus I cannot understand why the word "condemn" is incorporated in the motion today.

May 17, 1984
Supply
Hon. Members will know that over the past dozen years or more the present Government has focused totally on the question of designated areas, areas that fall within the regional criteria of regional disparities. Certainly the Atlantic area has been more than fairly treated in the designation of funds within the legislation for the development of projects, infrastructure, highway development, port development and other major capital projects. This opportunity then allows me to take issue with the terminology in the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough. I would like to put on record and correct the facts with regard to some of those expenditures, and his error in condemning the Government for the good work it has accomplished on the much needed projects in the Atlantic region.
In the new structure of Government, we have seen the reorganization of the former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which has been integrated into the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion with MSERD becoming responsible for policy, and the formation of the new Ministry of Economic Development, with the thrust of this legislation and the funds allocated thereto. We will also see the continuation of that very positive initiative that the Government put in place through the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. With trade questions being allocated to the Department of External Affairs, where there will be a more harmonious and efficient application of the kind of work that should be carried out jointly between the Department of External Affairs and Trade, it was, and is, appropriate that questions of international trade and trade matters be connected and that we have this type of co-operative effort within the Department of External Affairs. We see now that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will work in close harmony and will direct the operations and programs which fall within their responsibilities.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion together with the Minister for Economic and Regional Development will work jointly in a co-operative way on developing policies and developing the proper form for the continuation of economic expansion in those designated areas that continue to require the traditional assistance, such as many of the areas in the Atlantic provinces. Once a proper plan has been developed for economic growth in the four Atlantic provinces, those policies will be addressed and fully implemented through the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. The projects are funded with money freed up under existing agreements, agreements which have expired, and are allocated by region along traditional DREE expenditure lines. The Government has made a serious commitment to maintain regional economic development expenditures, at least at the historic level of the former general development expenditures agreements. The result is that we will provide resources in addition to those normally available through line Departments to support special regional development initiatives in all parts of the country.
Let us look at funding of the DREE GDA sub-agreement expenditures and a program financed from the regional fund. These figures show that regional spending allocation levels are being maintained. For example, in 1981-82, $155.9 million was committed to the Atlantic region. In 1982-83, under the new system, $214.4 million was committed to the Atlantic region. That is a substantial increase, even taking inflation into account. I firmly believe that these figure refute the argument that the system under which we now operate is detrimental to the Atlantic region's interests. The system now places more emphasis on agreement by the federal and provincial governments on broad, long-term development priorities in each province that can be approached in ways that do not necessarily call for signed sub-agreements or joint program delivery This will result in a smoother delivery operation. Such joint delivery remains possible under the current system, and there are already examples of this having happened, as exemplified by some of the agreements already in place or being negotiated under the ERDAs which the federal Government has signed with the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
What we are proposing with separate delivery is co-operative and co-ordinated planning but independent action. For example, if there is a clear need for a new port and a community to serve it, the federal Government can deliver the port while the province establishes the infrastructure for the community. It is a new approach. Without doubt there have been some start-up difficulties, some growing pains, over which we have all shared some concern. As the appropriate officials are put in place in the four Atlantic provinces and as the negotiations continue between the federal representatives, the Ministers responsible and the premiers of the provinces we will see a clear effort being made to ensure that those projects that are of priority and are ready to go ahead will go ahead as expeditiously as possible.
All the changes I have mentioned are designed to ensure that the whole economic development spending capacity of the federal Government, which I mentioned earlier, which involves billions of dollars, is used not only in pursuit of national objectives, as was the case in the past, but also is targeted increasingly toward regions such as the Atlantic area.
The priority that this Government has attached to this subject is evident in the actions that have been taken by this administration. An outstanding example is the creation of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in the early years of our administration. This was a daring and innovative move towards a solution to tie together a variety of desperately thinly spread economies and to make them work within the scope of the nation.
Over the years, DREE has provided substantial physical infrastructure assistance to the less advantaged regions of Canada. In the process, it has laid the basis for economic expansion and indeed has resulted in job creation. Much of that necessary infrastructure is now in place. There are ports,
**j
May 17, 1984

municipal services, roads, industrial parks and much more that can be found in all parts of the nation as a direct result of the dynamic initiatives taken by the Government through the early 1980s. It was then that the Government recognized that the time had come for a bold initiative to build even more effectively on the base that was laid by DREE. The Government is now continuing that initiative.
It is more than upsetting to hear people deliberately attempt to misrepresent the facts. It is upsetting to hear the word "condemn", which is contained in today's motion, and it is upsetting to hear all that gloom and doom when indeed millions and millions-yes, billions-of dollars have been designated and approved for expenditure to assist the areas which need this assistance so urgently at this time. Support for the regional economies of Canada is and must remain a fundamental principle of the federal Government. If the federation is to have real meaning, it must at the same time associate this diversity with efforts to ensure that the Canadian economic market operates as effectively as possible. To attempt this in any other way would be foolhardy to say the least.
The reorganization of the federal Government Departments and the regional policies which flow from it mark a fundamental initiative to promote effective federal policies that serve the dual objective of ensuring that there are no barriers to trade and of ensuring that there is support for the maintenance of strength and vitality in the regions so that the nation can achieve a better balance and become more efficient on the economic common market. The key to the significance of the reorganization lies in the fact that for the first time in history, support of regional development is the goal of an integrated thrust of all the federal Government's economic development forces.
Through the reorganization, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has required that all Departments strengthen their organizational and programming capacities in the regions. The job of keeping a keen supervisory eye on regional interest and development and making sure that regional views are properly taken into account when formulating national policies was transferred to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston). As a central agency, the Ministry is in a position to ensure that regional concerns and priorities are brought to the attention of Ministers and are central to policy or program funding decisions.
To meet the challenge of the new regional emphasis, the Minister has opened regional offices in each province. These offices are headed by senior officials who are called federal economic development co-ordinators. Indeed, in the month of May of 1984, I am pleased to say that in my Province of New Brunswick there is a very senior, capable and able civil servant heading this responsibility, not only on the MSERD and economic growth and development side but also on the regional industrial expansion side. Mr. Patrice Blanchard is carrying out these responsibilities in a very efficient way, as is his counterpart, Mr. John McNaught, who represents the Department of Economic and Regional Development in New Brunswick. Both of these gentlemen have taken on their responsibili-
Supply
ties in a way which will see the implementation of these policies and programs carried out in the efficient manner to which I have referred this afternoon. The appointment of these people testifies to the fact that the federal Government's commitment to reducing regional disparities is stronger than ever.
I would like to continue to use the Province of New Brunswick as an example of one of the provinces in Atlantic Canada to which there is federal commitment to alleviate regional economic disparity. On April 13, 1984, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development on behalf of Canada and the Premier of New Brunswick on behalf of the province signed a new federal-provincial economic and regional development agreement commonly referred to as ERDA. This new agreement replaces the expired 10-year general development agreement that had seen the delivery of more than $450 million of federal money to fund a broad range of essential infrastructure projects. These projects provide a framework within which measures for economic development in New Brunswick may be taken through consultation and co-operation. Within this 10-year framework for joint planning and co-ordinated delivery, federal and provincial Governments are working together to develop concrete initiatives, including subsidiary agreements that provide for specific activities and a memorandum of understanding that provides a basis for the development of such activities.
In the last 10 years, both levels of Government have committed well over $500 million to the economic development of New Brunswick. We have made a commitment to maintain spending at the same level as under the previous GDA agreement. Previously, specific projects were realized through subsidiary agreements either on a sector-by-sector basis dealing with agriculture, forestry, minerals or fuels, or on a regional basis as was the case for the northeast and Kent regional subsidiary agreements. These GDA subsidiary agreements provide assistance for educational, industrial, municipal and transportation infrastructures along with specific priority initiatives.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that while we have done a hell of a lot through the previous GDA agreement and through the original DREE Department, much remains to be done. There are other specific areas in the region which must be targeted for development. That is certainly true of many parts of New Brunswick and particularly true of the northern portion of the province.
While we have spent millions of dollars assisting the province with respect to infrastructure such as municipal services, we are hearing all too often now that the provincial Government finds itself in dire straits. It has found itself strapped financially for one reason or another. I will not deal with the details of the causes within the administration of that Government for being in such a bad financial position.
Since the Government is crying that it is too strapped financially to pay for some of these projects from its own budget, it seems to me that while these negotiations are going on, Ministers in the provincial Government, such as the Minis-

May 17, 1984
Supply
ter of Municipal Affairs, should avail themselves of the opportunity to convince their own premier and Cabinet colleagues to focus on the possibility of achieving through those negotiations an agreement to allocate some funds targeted for the continuation of certain municipal and other projects to essential services, such as water and sewage or other infrastructure services that should already be in place. This being the year 1984, our people should already be enjoying the services that other Canadians enjoy. Therefore, I urge the Minister, when accepting his responsibilities, in spite of whatever planning or other problems exist within the province, to try to utilize the Government's new structure of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department of Economic and Regional Development when allocating funds for this purpose.
The needs are there and they continue to be as great and as urgent as ever. We must continue to support the mining, forestry, fishing and transportation sectors until such time as we have achieved the goal we all wish to achieve of having modern facilities to give us the capacity to be productive and competitive in the marketplace.
While we have achieved a great deal, I repeat it is more than millions, it is in the billions of dollars that this Government has religiously and consistently allocated to areas such as Atlantic Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the federal Government for the amount of money that has been targeted to date. We certainly appreciate this support and the co-operation of the federal Government. But, much remains to be done. We must continue to keep a close watch and work together to discover ways in the short term to achieve other major projects that will require funding for economic growth under the new re-organization of the government structure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? For debate, the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the important motion which is before the House today, I would like to comment on the experience we have had in the Province of New Brunswick and then in the Atlantic provinces. I would like to identify the problems as I see them and propose constructive solutions that are preferable to the course that the Government is now following.
New Brunswick possesses a number of strengths which could be the basis for growth opportunities in the development of products and services embodying new technologies. These include the New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council which has attracted world-wide attention for its work in metallurgy, and a well-established engineering school at the University of New Brunswick, which offers the only Ph.D. program in North America in computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing. New Brunswick has excellent schools of computer science and world-class expertise in telecommunications technology. The province possesses a core of advanced metal working and machinery firms in strategic
positions to capitalize on oil and gas developments on the East Coast. Use of CAD/CAM techniques, which I referred to a moment ago, assisted by the province's manufacturing technol-gy centre, have the potential to improve greatly the competitive position of smaller companies. The province also possesses the country's most efficient shipyard, which has recently won a contract for the management of the naval frigate program.
The availability of skilled and semi-skilled labour is an important attraction for certain high technology operations. The availability of well educated young people and co-operative labour-management relations provide New Brunswick with vocational advantages over other centres in Canada. New Brunswick also has advantages to offer in the quality of life factors, such as housing costs, access to outdoor recreation and commuting time.
The resource sectors focus on capitalizing on the traditional strengths of these sectors in the New Brunswick economy. Priority is assigned to maintaining jobs in these sectors by increasing productivity and improving New Brunswick's competitive position in national and international markets and encouraging further resource processing prior to export. A number of opportunities exist to increase the production of key business, industrial and commercial services to serve not only provincial and national demand but export markets as well. For example, while the province's consulting engineering industry is small, it currently exports world-class expertise in areas such as forest products and transportation. The tourism sector has great growth potential as well.
It is interesting to note that the general development agreement, signed in 1974, took as its primary objective the reduction of the gap in earned income per capita between New Brunswick and the national average while minimizing net migration from the province. While it is clear that some progress has been made toward the general development agreement objectives in terms of accelerated growth of provincial output and employment and in terms of net migration, significant disparities remain between New Brunswick and the national average. Earned income per capita, for example, stood at only two-thirds of the national average. This statement is repeated on page 8 of the economic and regional development agreement signed between Canada and New Brunswick in April of this year.
In moving New Brunswick toward economic self-sufficiency, and by putting in place a significant secondary manufacturing segment, we increase the tax base and reduce New Brunswick's dependence on Ottawa. In other words, Canada's investment can significantly reduce New Brunswick's dependence and the amount of money required from Ottawa in transfer payments. While each of the Atlantic provinces has particular problems, they all share the same problem of disparity.
What can we do? How do we build industry in New Brunswick and in the other Atlantic provinces? Like any construction project, the first thing we must do is to lay a firm foundation. We must create a climate which is attractive to industry. We believe that that foundation can be found in the
May 17, 1984

four Progressive Conservative pillars of economic growth: lower interest rates, technology, training, and trade.
First, I would like to discuss lower interest rates. If we want to revitalize the manufacturing sector and create jobs for our people, it is essential that we start to create the conditions which will allow interest rates to come down without destroying our currency or reigniting inflation. The Government says that lower interest rates are not possible. It says that Canada is totally dependent on American monetary policy and that it can do nothing. I disagree. Yes, American interest rates are a constraint; they always have been and they always will be. But no, we are not totally powerless. We can lessen our dependence on the United States interest rates over time without causing an exchange rate crisis, if we put upward pressure on the dollar through a strong export performance and then allow an inflow of job-creating capital. If lower interest rates is the first prerequisite for industrial growth and job creation, the second is a renewed commitment to technological innovation.
If we are to maintain our standard of living and create the wealth to finance desirable social and cultural programs, it is essential that we develop a nationally and internationally competitive industrial base. That means that we must produce, apply and diffuse modern technology throughout the economy in our factories, on our farms and in our offices. We must face the technological challenge and turn it to our advantage. But technology is not going to help us if Canadians are not trained and educated in its use. That is the third challenge facing us: To manage technological change and prepare Canadians who live in New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces for the information age. We must make sure we are masters of technology, not its servants.
Managing technological change means ensuring that business and labour put in place effective in-house programs to train and retrain their employees in the new technologies. It means using the tax system to encourage such training prior to the introduction of new technology, and defining standards of labour-management consultation. It means working with the provinces to ensure that our education system prepares our youth for technological change.
Managing technological change means amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow recipients to upgrade their skills through retraining or experience in the voluntary sector. It means ensuring that women do not bear the brunt of technological change; that they are given the skills and the opportunity to secure true economic equality. What is most important perhaps, managing change means changing our attitude towards growth. It means ending our complacent reliance on natural resources, and shifting our efforts to human resources.
So far I have spoken about training, technology and interest rates. I would like to turn to the fourth pillar of our foundation for growth, that is, trade expansion. Access to foreign markets is an essential element of any realistic industrial strategy. We must pursue that goal vigorously by supporting efforts to begin a new round of GATT multilateral negotiations, by working to create an international framework for trade in services, and by
Supply
continuing bilateral discussions with the United States of America in specific sectors. We must ensure that our industries have the opportunity to compete and the opportunity to grow. But opportunity is not enough. We must also help our companies to seize these opportunities. We must strengthen our export marketing support through the trade commissioner's service and better market intelligence. We must support exports by integrating the services of private and public sector financial institutions; ensure that our tax system encourages greater export trade; work with the provinces to develop regional export strategies; seek to establish export trade zones; use all available policy levers to encourage global product mandates for multinational subsidiaries; ensure better financing and marketing for agricultural and small business exports; and become a more competitive force in the new global environment of trading houses, export consortia, barter and countertrade.
In short, our goal is to help Canadian industries and producers become first class national and world traders and reliable suppliers of quality goods and services at competitive prices. That is what productivity is all about. That is how permanent jobs will be created. That then is the framework of our strategy for the manufacturing sector, a strategy which puts first things first and a strategy which recognizes that specific policies for specific industries are diminished without a solid foundation for growth in a climate attractive to industrial development. It is a strategy that recognizes that the primary role of the federal Government in economic policy must be to support the efforts of the builders and workers in our society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any questions or comments? Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology.


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a mouthful.
I am pleased to take the floor today, when the House is considering an Opposition motion concerning changes that have taken place and the new direction given by the Government to Departments with an economic mission.
Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, on January 12, 1982, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) created the Economic Development Ministry which takes in all Departments with an economic mission. At the same time, a number of changes were made in the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion when the IRDP program was created.
I would like to start, Mr. Speaker, by giving a short history of what the situation was at the time, and I shall then explain why the Government made these changes. In 1974, the federal

May 17, 1984
Supply
Government signed general development agreements with the ten provinces. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion had concluded many subsidiary agreements with the provinces for the purpose of undertaking a number of joint projects and programs aimed at promoting development in the regions. Many of these programs are still in effect. However, the GDAs, most of which were for a ten-year period, practically all expired on March 31, 1984. On January 12, 1982, the Right Hon. Prime Minister announced there would be a re-organization of the Government of Canada. One of the objectives was to give all Departments with an economic mission responsibility for regional economic development, instead of having a single department like the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for that purpose. General coordinating of economic and regional development at the federal level has now been entrusted to a Cabinet committee responsible for economic and regional development. The new Economic and Regional Development Ministry, whose Minister is the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), has initial responsibility for implementing this co-ordination, as set forth in the Government Organization Act, 1983. Responsibility for present GDA sub-agreements has been transferred from DREE to the Ministers in charge of implementing Departments, while the Economic and Regional Development Ministry is responsible for developing and negotiating new general agreements with the provinces, to replace the GDAs expiring on March 31, 1984. Mr. Speaker, four provinces have already signed new agreements with the federal Government, for a ten-year period. However, there is now a new provision which stipulates that agreements may be renegotiated or reviewed by the various levels of government signing the agreements.
Last fall and last winter, the Minister met with representatives from the ten provinces to discuss general problems in connection with economic and regional development and the new general agreements. Today, a definitive agreement has been concluded with four provinces while discussions are under way with the other provinces. The purpose of the new economic and regional development agreements is to provide a framework for co-operation and consultation on questions relating to the economic development of each province and each region. As I said earlier, the agreements run for ten years and provide a framework for taking measures to promote the economic development of the province concerned. The agreements determine development prospects for implementation through subsidiary agreements, and provide for general coordination of the latter agreements. They will provide, as appropriate, for the adoption of economic development measures by federal and provincial governments through their respective programs and departments. They will ensure that effective consultation and co-ordination take place between federal and provincial governments regarding the implementation of economic development programs, and the instruments attached to economic development agreements will, if necessary, allow for joint projects with provincial governments. However, the measures to be taken by each government will be very precisely defined. Obviously, not all new regional economic development agreements will be identical. In other words, they will vary according to the discussions that will take place with each province. The agreements will, more specifically, take into consideration the economic responsibilities, resources and constraints of each region.
Each document will contain a general statement of objectives, a description of requirements and the consultation and co-ordinating process, as well as a section covering further details such as duration and evaluation. Each agreement will also include administrative provisions relating to medium-term development priorities for each province. Key factors will be the provisions for consultation and co-ordination. Each agreement will contain provisions providing for first: annual departmental consultation on priorities; second: determining prospects and subsidiary agreements, if any; third: ongoing consultation and co-ordination by designated officials, and steps to be taken by the Department concerned with respect to priorities.
Mr. Speaker, that is more or less how the Government has set its priorities and how it decided to make some changes in the general agreements with the provinces. I must say that, after looking at these changes and especially the creation of the new IRDP program, I would like to expand somewhat on this program and especially on what is happening in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is entirely in order. The House is aware that there were a number of federal-provincial agreements that were concluded with Quebec, and that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was active in the regions, as necessary. However, since the system did create a number of disparities within Quebec, I feel that the new IRDP program has been able to neutralize what was sometimes unfair competition among the regions. I am referring mainly to Quebec, since that is my home province. The system may, as I said, have created a number of disparities among the regions.
Under the new Industrial Regional Development Program, Mr. Speaker, the riding of Portneuf is now at the third level. As Hon. Members know, the new program administered by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is now called IRDP; it has four levels and is applied throughout Canada. My riding is now at the third level. Mr. Speaker, for the information of everybody, particularly the people of my riding, I would like to give a few examples.
At the outset, when a businessman in my riding wanted to submit a project or a program to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the maximum amount available under the new IRDP was 25 per cent of total investments and, at the third level which is applicable to my riding, the maximum
May 17, 1984

grant can now be as high as 50 per cent. The amount varies from case to case.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the principles underlying the IRDP and the changes made within the Government. The main objective was to simplify the programs. We had often heard constituents complaining that it was very hard to find out what department should be contacted, or through which program grants-or even information, for that matter-could be obtained. I think that the creation of the IRDP and the wholesale changes made in the realm of regional economic development were aimed at simplifying the various programs, as economic agents in my riding and throughout Canada had long been urging.
The Industrial and Regional Development Program will now be a lot easier to implement and will take into consideration the needs of the regions. In addition, the business community will find it much more effective than previous programs. There will now be only one set of regulations and only one way to apply them, whereas before there were series of regulations and a good many application forms. The IRDP retains the best features of the old programs. In other words, they did not throw overboard everything that was good. Another way of putting it would be to say that we now have what might be called the one-wicket formula. The new IRDP eliminates duplication and takes into account certain needs which were not even considered before.
Here is a list of seven programs which have now been grouped under the IRDP: the Industrial Development Program, the program under the Regional Development Incentives Act, the program to promote productivity in technical fields, the cooperative Program for Export Market Development, the Industrial Assistance Program, the Montreal Special Area Program and the Iles-de-la-Madeleine Special Area Program.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, businessmen and economic expansion agents were at a loss and it was often practically impossible to find one's way through that maze of acronyms that were hard to identify. One of the objectives of all those changes was to simplify the program. It will now be a lot easier because the emphasis will be on regional needs and the business community throughout Canada will have ready access to all federal industrial expansion programs. For the first time, all programs sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion will be provided under the same roof in the various regions. That is quite important, because in my region a lot of programs had been administered by the regional office in Quebec City and others by the regional office in Montreal. It was all rather complicated.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have about five minutes left and I would like to refer once again to the various government levels and add a few comments about what could be acceptable under the IRDP in my region. Certain operations were not
Supply
acceptable before as the region did not have the proper designation. In the area of economic development, for instance, one should recall the establishment of non-profit centres or institutions, the studies carried out by consultants on modernization and expansion, as well as the adaptation of technology, micro-electronics and electronics. In the past, all such operations were subsidized only up to 25 percent in my region but now they can be eligible for subsidies of up to 75 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the tourist development and promotion program is also very important. As everyone is aware, Portneuf is a constituency with an economy based on business and tourism; it is also a constituency where agriculture is very important. However, one of the most important features in the region remains tourism. For many years, people in the industry have made major efforts to develop our tourist industry since it generates a high level of economic activity in the region. By the way, I should point out that tourist development and promotion programs will continue to fall under the IRDP. There is Tourism Canada which will still be under the jurisdiction of ITC and DREE. This agency will use ITC and DREE programs as well as the special economic and regional development fund of the political reserve, if needs be, to stimulate the development of the tourist industry in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left and I would like to close by saying that, personally and as a Member of the Government I hold the opposite view to what is stated in the motion. The changes made as far as the Ministry of Economic and Regional Development is concerned and those to clarify the federal programs in this sector can but promote economic development. It will now be a lot easier for people in the industry, people who can promote economic development and businessmen to make use of all these programs. In my opinion, such changes are more likely than not to promote economic development in our regions.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I must say that I disagree with the motion introduced by the Official Opposition and that I support the Government's position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? If not, we shall proceed with debate.

May 17, 1984
Supply



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Special Recovery Capital Projects Program-Halifax Waterfront Complex, (b) Starting Date Inquiry; the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-External Affairs-United States-Oil Drilling Leases Off Coast of British Columbia, (b) Canadian Sovereignty; the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky)-Indian Affairs-West Region Tribal Council, (b) Valley River Indian Band-Proposal to Purchase Ballast Pit.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning its commitment to alleviate regional economic disparities and thereby encouraging continued economic inequality between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country through a policy of gutting the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, slashing investment in regional development and downgrading, for political purposes, federal-provincial development agreements.
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on this motion, which underlines the problem of regional disparity, particularly in Atlantic Canada, by commenting in a general way on the regional nature of Canada. Upon the creation of Canada in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation recognized and realized that the nation they established was a federation of regions called provinces. It was known and understood that the federation would alter the economies of each territorial area. Nova Scotia was a trader whose tall ships travelled international waters to buy, sell and exchange articles of commerce. The products of Atlantic industry were the source of substantial wealth in Nova Scotia.
One hundred and seventeen years later, in 1984, the great majority of our consumer goods in Nova Scotia are produced in central Canada. We pay a premium price for those products. The price would be willingly paid if it helped all Canadians and contributed to the expansion of the Canadian economy. However, Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians, Maritimers and Atlantic Canadians all want to know how we in our region
benefit from Confederation. Having phrased that question, let me respond immediately by saying in fairness that successive national governments, especially the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, have addressed this problem. Many programs have been established, implemented and then abandoned. These programs were intended to rectify the problems in those regions of Canada which suffered from Confederation, particularly Atlantic Canada.
I wonder how many Members of the House remember the Atlantic Development Board. It was the orphan child of the interregnum between the Conservative and Liberal Governments in the mid 1960s. The Atlantic Development Board was to be the focal point of assistance to Atlantic Canada. It was to develop programs in a very specific way and enter directly into industrial projects and developments in the Atlantic area in the hope and expectation that it would contribute to the improvement of the economic processes in the Atlantic area. However, the Atlantic Development Board went the way of its predecessor programs.
The popular designation for this process of recognizing and responding to the economic problem, not only in Atlantic Canada but across Canada, is best described in the phrase "correction of regional disparity". That is what those in the national Government have set out to do, correct the problems of regional disparity. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the process of correcting regional disparity, which in fact benefits all areas of Canada, has been characterized by some as merely involving financial assistance for Atlantic Canada, a kind of civic welfare payment or social assistance for the poor provinces. Correcting regional disparity should and must be a national goal because Canada is only as strong as its weakest part.
The fact that correcting regional disparity must be a national goal and not simply a civic welfare payment accomplished by financial transfers and similar financial assistance, has really been recognized in Canada's Constitution. At this point I would like to pay respect to such people as the former Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. G. I. Smith, who later served as Senator. It was his personal goal to institutionalize the correction of regional disparity in the form of a constitution provision. Its characteristic of being a mere hand-out, a mere civic welfare payment was changed. The Hon. G. I. Smith and others who served with him, like the Hon. Robert Stanfield, were proud when the federal Government finally recognized that this was the sort of concept which ought to be institutionalized in the Constitution. In fact, Section 36 of the Constitution Act which was approved in 1972 by Her Majesty The Queen in this very Parliament, provides:
-Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
Subsection (2) of the Constitution Act provides that:
Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
May 17, 1984

The correction of regional disparities and the equalization of services for all Canadians have been made a principle of the new Constitution and made effective by the Constitution Act of 1972. However, have we really taken equalization and the correction of regional disparities out of their former context? Are they not still a kind of civic welfare payment? Has the Government of Canada really changed its attitude in the area of correcting regional disparities? Mr. Speaker, I must say, after having made what I think is an honest assessment, that the attitude has not changed. The Government still thinks in terms of hand-outs. It still thinks in terms of solving problems as they arise. The Government still thinks in terms of correcting difficulties when they occur. There is no over-all plan. There is no grand expansion. There is no war on regional disparity such as President Kennedy established in the United States with his war on poverty. We have no war on regional disparity and that is what we must have in order to accomplish anything.
As one item of evidence I will point to the fact that the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion never had a role at the heart of the Government of Canada under the Liberal administration. It was always a Department of Government on the periphery of the real force and power within the Government. That has not changed with the change of name to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. The new Department is no different from the old. It is merely a change of name. It is not at the heart of Government. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. There is no one, no officer, no person in the Government of Canada, who has taken responsibility for the vital national goal of the correction of regional disparity. Therefore, while we have the constitutional provisions, whatever they mean in legal terms, we do not have the spirit or the attitude of a government which will support in a real way that provision which has now been enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, our problems remain.
I will examine those problems very quickly, Mr. Speaker. In Atlantic Canada there are four separate provinces. There are Canadians who would have those provinces unify and become one province. However, that is simply not possible. Each province, whether it is New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, has its own separate identity. I have no reason to believe that those identities will be changed in the decades to come, so we must deal with the reality of the situation, that is, that there are four separate provinces. Each of those provinces has its own resources and merits. I am particularly concerned, of course, with the Province of Nova Scotia. However, I do not want to speak about the provinces in an abstract way.
The greatest resource of each of those provinces, and particularly of the Province of Nova Scotia, is the people. That is to say, the people are the greatest resource of the Province of Nova Scotia, so I would like to examine the people in the light of their problems, which result from the regional disparity inflicted on the Province of Nova Scotia since 1867. I will speak first of all about the problems of the people in Nova Scotia.
Supply
When one looks at the statistical analysis one finds two very important things. This applies to any Canadian. If your income is low and your debt is high, you are in economic difficulty. That is exactly the situation in the Atlantic area. The incomes of people in the Province of Nova Scotia are substantially below the national average, and especially below the incomes enjoyed by people provinces like Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. By way of example, the average income in the Province of Alberta is $37,645, while the average income in Nova Scotia is $26,944.
One can also compare the public debt which has been incurred by the governments of those provinces and must be paid for by the people, the taxpayers, the income earners. We all know about the relatively debt free position of the Province of Alberta due to its Heritage Fund. The public debt in Nova Scotia has risen to $2 billion. That is not through any fault of the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. In order to maintain the level of public services guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution Act, the Government of Nova Scotia has had to borrow to meet the needs and demands of the people of Nova Scotia in this modern Canada. That has resulted in a substantial provincial debt, although I hasten to add that that debt is not as high as those of the other Atlantic provinces. However, that is the situation generally in Atlantic Canada; low incomes and high debts. Therefore, the provincial governments are left without the resources to create economic expansion within their own area. That is a fact of life that can be established and documented and it cannot be blamed upon any of the individual governments of the Atlantic provinces, particularly the Province of Nova Scotia. That is why the correction of economic and regional disparity becomes a problem for the national Government and why the Government of Canada must set that as a national goal in the achievement of which all Canadians must participate. In making my own case let me say that that is why we have Section 36 of the Constitution Act of 1972. It represents the agreement of all Canadians to eliminate regional disparity as a national goal.
In standing in this Parliament of Canada and reminding parliamentarians, and through them Canadians, of these facts, I am simply making the case that the Atlantic area, provinces like Nova Scotia, require substantial and indeed massive government assistance to eliminate the economic disparity from which those provinces in that area of Canada suffers.
We have looked at the problems; let us look at some of the solutions. I have already indicated that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its successor Department of Regional Industrial Expansion have not resolved the problem. I believe the reason is that those Departments are not and have never been an integral part of the Government of Canada. They are not at the heart of government policy but are, rather, on the periphery, just like the Department of National Defence is outside the heart of the Government. It is non-political and does not get the special grants such as we have seen paid out in the Liberal constituencies across Canada. It does not get special treatment.

May 17, 1984
Supply
Until special treatment is given to the problem of regional disparity, nothing will change. We have had special programs, some of which have been successful and some of which have not. Rather than deal in an abstract way with this very practical subject, let me examine some of the problems that we have in the Atlantic area that are particularly important to Nova Scotia.
If the Province of Nova Scotia is to develop, it must be through the basic industries and resources of the region, using the capabilities of the people of Nova Scotia. That means the development of the basic industries of fishery, forestry, farming and energy. While we are not excluding ourselves from the manufacturing industry, our success has been in the basic resource industry. When I say energy, of course I include coal mining as well as the substantive offshore development which is anticipated for the future.
Let us look at the fisheries. We have a potentially viable, indeed lucrative, industry in the Altantic fishery. But what has happened? For some mysterious reason, notwithstanding the world-wide shortage of protein food and the high price of red meat world-wide, apparently there are difficulties in marketing fish. Who is responsible for that? Is that the responsibility of a fisherman at Peggy's Cove or Indian Harbour in the federal constituency of Halifax West? No, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must assume responsibility for that type of problem. It is only that Department, with the assistance of the Department of External Affairs through the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and other agencies, that must resolve that problem.
There is an even more vital problem at the moment in the fishing industry. First, there is the restructuring which has just been accomplished with yet unknown results. That creates turmoil. Furthermore, the Government of Canada has placed the matter of the jurisdiction over Georges Bank before the international court at The Hague. I have just attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I asked the officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans what the alternative was if Canada loses its case before the international court? While no one wants that result, the point is that the Government of Canada is gambling in the international court with Nova Scotia's fisheries chips, if I can make that analogy. It put the Nova Scotia fishing resource on the table in the international court at The Hague and now it refuses to tell us what will happen if the case is lost. Any lawyer will say that when one goes to court one will either win or lose. That is an example of the problems we face. There is a viable industry in the midst of restructuring, and the Government is taking the risk of losing one of the most substantial resources bringing in $100 million and more in fish catch. I think that is a subject that bears close scrutiny. If the Altantic fishery is to be restructured and to become viable, it uwtainly will not happen without the resource of the fishery at Georges Bank.
Let me talk about another industry that needs federal help immediately, not a month or two from now. It is the Cape Breton coal mining industry. In 1967, the Parliament of
Canada established the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Government took responsibility for the coal mining industry. The largest portion of that industrial activity on the Island of Cape Breton, in No. 26 colliery mining coal in a submarine mine, is closed as a result of a fire on April 5, 1984. It has not been reopened and 1,200 miners are out of work. Thousands of other workers who are dependent upon that mining operation for their employment are out of work.
The Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) has failed to indicate clearly what action he proposes to take to have that mine reopened, which may be a physical impossibility at this point, or to have a substitute mining operation. It is curious that this matter is being debated in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia by the provincial colleagues of the federal Liberals. They are asking the Government of Nova Scotia what it will do, but this is a federal responsibility. The Government of Canada took over the Cape Breton coal mines. I see that the Minister has just entered the House. I say that it belongs to the Government of Canada through its agent, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It is a primary responsibility that is no different from de Havilland in the aircraft industry. It is the federal Government's responsibility to act now. There are substantial funds involved and substantial funding is necessarily required, but it is only a small portion of the money that has been spent on projects like de Havilland, Mirabel Airport and so on. Nova Scotia wants its share of the national wealth that is being spent in that way.
We will finance special development in the Atlantic region by stopping some of the wastage that now occurs. Let me give one small example. The Government of Canada has established a transportation subsidy of $7.3 million for Atlantic Container Express to ship goods out of the Port of Montreal, to the disadvantage of the Port of Halifax. The sad part of this is that just within the year, the Government of Canada made a payment to the previous carrier, Newfoundland Steamships Company, of over $5 million to buy out that subsidy.
I could go through the books of the Government of Canada and find millions and millions of wasted dollars which, if spent on industrial development in Atlantic Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia, would put every Nova Scotian on easy street.
Let me end with this thought and this hope for the future. It has been clearly established that the future of the Canadian economy, its viability and the creation of jobs depends on the expansion of international trade. That is no more true anywhere in Canada than it is in the Province of Nova Scotia, with the potential for energy and other exports and manufactured goods. I remind the House that $1 billion in exports produces 17,000 jobs and that there has been a dramatic increase in international trade. If we participate in that international trade, we will produce the jobs we need. If we direct development in Atlantic Canada, particularly in the Province of Nova Scotia, we will produce the activities and the jobs we need to give Nova Scotians and all Atlantic Canadians a real place in the Confederation of Canada.
May 17, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion before the House which condemns the Government for abandoning its commitment to alleviate regional economic disparities. I must say that I agree with that assertion because when the Government consolidated its programs and brought in new legislation with regard to regional economic expansion, it reduced the amount of money which went into Manitoba, particularly into northern Manitoba. In that process, the Government attempted to increase its visibility in the passing out of public dollars in the northern part of the province. At least, it appeared to be a political approach to economic development rather than an approach which really attempted to meet the basic human needs of the people.
In fact, during the last provincial election, rumours were rife throughout Manitoba that if one wanted money from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, one had to go to the local Liberal Indian chief. It took many dedicated individuals to sweep away this notion of patronage, to point out that it would not work and that a government could not be elected on that basis.
People are far too sophisticated. They want programs and policies which deal with their social and economic problems. The motion we are discussing deals with the Atlantic provinces. However, coming from the Province of Manitoba, I feel akin to the people in Atlantic Canada, particularly their need for help. The inner cities of western Canada are most in need of help. If there is one thing the federal Government could do which would be important in terms of regional development throughout western Canada, it would be to make funds available for development in core areas like Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon.
There is a program in Winnipeg known as the core area initiative program that will come to an end within a couple of years. It came about as a result of a great deal of pressure by local citizens upon the publicly-visible sitting Liberal member in Manitoba. It is important that government, of whatever stripe, begin to plan today to provide funds for the programs that were started under the core initiative program in Winnipeg. The people involved in these programs have started daycare centres, affirmative action training programs, as well as housing programs. The fundamental problem is one of resources. This is what regional economic development is all about. People, particularly poor ones, will be left hanging out to dry unless government plans where the money will come from to keep such programs going. These programs contribute to social justice in the country.
I call upon the Government to renew its commitment to regional development, particularly to make a commitment to the inner cities of Canada, so that people who are left out of the sharing of the wealth of this nation will receive justice, their children will be able to attend decent schools and they will have a future. The Government must ensure that old
Supply
people living in inner cities have decent police protection, decent housing and grocery stores to which they can walk. The Government should do something significant and real in terms of regional econoic expansion in the Atlantic provinces as well as in the inner cities across the country, particularly western Canadian cities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate because it affects both your area and mine. I compliment the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) for initiating debate on a subject which requires a great deal of exposure at this point in time.
One reason for suggesting that is that recently the seven aspiring Liberal leadership candidates attended a policy forum in Halifax. One would almost have thought that that forum took place on the moon, as far as any particular discussion of problems in Atlantic Canada were concerned. They just did not seem to know where they were. One of the major complaints of their supporters or possible supporters in Halifax was the fact that the problems of the Atlantic provinces did not seem to be the problems of the Liberal leadership candidates. They preferred to discuss national policies rather than regional ones. I would have thought that policy conferences across the country would relate to regional problems facing the country. If not, why not have all policy sessions in Ottawa rather than travel across the country to discuss national policies?
I would have liked to have heard some discussion by those leadership aspirants as to what will happen to FIRA. FIRA has been a curse for Atlantic Canada. It has prevented many potential industries from coming to our area. For example, within the last six months in my constituency because of the regulations of FIRA, a potential employer in our blueberry industry was lost. That industry has become a very substantial one, not because of the initiatives of this Government but because of the initiatives of provincial governments in that area. It is a big dollar earner outside of Canada and is of benefit to Canadians. However, there was no significant discussion about FIRA or about the need to have money invested in industry. Where the money happens to come from is not really important, as long as the companies which come to Canada become corporate citizens of this nation and adhere to our rules and regulations.
As a result of the system which is in place at the moment, many potential investors in this country turn away without examining the situation because of substantial delays in the processing of applications. It is somewhat better than it was for a period of time, but FIRA is a major disability in terms of the attraction of industry to Atlantic Canada. As far as I am concerned, its involvement in the location of industry should be substantially reduced. Provincial governments should determine whether or not an industry will be a positive benefit or a detriment to a given province. They rather than the federal

Supply
Government should have an input into the decision-making process.
The Canadian people are fortunate indeed to have had the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of our Party, make a deliberate decision, in co-operation with the Hon. Elmer MacKay, to represent a constituency in Nova Scotia. The Hon. Member for Central Nova had a long, useful and positive relationship with Atlantic Canada as a youth in university and as a prominent member of the Canadian business community. The fact that he represents a constituency in Atlantic Canada has given him the opportunity to have a deeper and better understanding of many of the problems that Members from Atlantic Canada have been fighting. We require special recognition of the disparities that exist between Atlantic Canada and the remainder of this nation.
When he becomes Prime Minister after the next general election, he will have a sensitivity to the problems we grapple with on a daily basis. He will look forward to positive suggestions. He will initiate new programs that will be of real and lasting benefit. This will go a long way toward eliminating the regional economic disparity that now exists.
As a veteran member of this institution, I can say that there have been times when special legislative initiatives were taken geared specifically to overcoming the disparities in Atlantic Canada. They were designed to assist in the industrial sector and every other sector in order to alleviate some of the difficulties faced by people from an employment and social justice point of view. Unfortunately, for the last decade, we have seen very little of a positive nature with regard to overcoming the disparities that we face.
It is obvious that the gap between Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada is widening. We again face an out-migration of our people. For a period of time there was a turnaround when people were returning. There were jobs for them. They had an opportunity to participate in the area from which they came.
In the days ahead, dramatic initiatives must be taken that will say to the total business community, inside and outside Canada, that the Government is going to put in place special programs and policies that will give them the opportunity to realize their specific goals. At the same time, this will provide new jobs in place of the LIP, "gyp" or whatever the programs are called. They do nothing more than guarantee that for 10 or 12 weeks people will be employed. However, forever and a day these people will be recipients of unemployment insurance. They have no hope of realizing their potential or the destiny they desire and have a right to expect. That is not happening.
I want to mention a few matters that could be of real value. This could be done almost immediately. It would produce a new atmosphere and new hope for the unemployed in our area who are becoming chronically unemployed. They see no hope for today, tomorrow or next year.
One initiative that could be taken by the federal Government could be through co-operation with our chartered banks rather than any legislative initiative. This initiative must come
from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The chartered banks would not pay that much attention to individual Members of Parliament. This Parliament, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, should ask the chartered banks to develop a sector that places special emphasis on Atlantic Canada. It should guarantee an examination of every proposal put forward by every enterpriser. New ideas could be fostered to produce new industries. I am not talking about megaprojects which employ 2,000 or 3,000. I am talking about small businesses which employ 10 or 15 people. Small business must continue to be the backbone of this nation, especially in Atlantic Canada.
The past two years have been times of great difficulty. Whether we want to admit it or not, these problems exist at this moment in Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada is not coming out of the recession. There is as much unemployment as ever, and not many new initiatives are being taken. Interest rates are again climbing. Whatever possibilities might have been in the minds of individual investors are gone. What might have happened is being flattened out because of high interest rates. Rather than trying to assist, the banks immediately call in their loans. This creates more and more bankruptcies of normally viable small business ventures. In 1981, 1982 and 1983, there was a tremendous increase in bankruptcies in Atlantic Canada. The chartered banks failed their customers by not riding with them through a very difficult high-interest period. With proper procedures, the Government could convince the chartered banks that they have a special responsibility, just like the Government, to assist in eliminating regional economic disparity.
My second suggestion is that there be an examination of our transportation policy, specifically with regard to Atlantic Canada. In the last two decades, if not three, there has not been an in-depth examination of the transportation policy in Atlantic Canada. One might say, Mr. Speaker, that we have always been like the tail wagging the dog. We receive whatever an examination of transportation brings forward that relates to the remainder of Canada but never to our own specific region of Canada. Last year, for instance, when we were supposedly coming out of the recession, the Minister of Transport, for reasons best known to him, decided that he would undertake an examination of the assistance that was available to industries in our part of Canada to see whether or not he could eliminate or reduce the transportation assistance that was available.
That examination guaranteed that nothing happened in Atlantic Canada for all of last year when the rest of the country was coming out of the recession. The industrial, agricultural, fishing and lumbering sectors did not know whether there would be any assistance and if so how much, so no one could make any long-term decisions. They were simply put on hold through all of last year when the rest of the nation was at least experiencing some movement in a positive direction.
May 17, 1984

We should examine the transportation policy as it relates to Atlantic Canada from the point of view of enhancing assistance in Atlantic Canada so that new incentives can be given to potential investors to move manufactured goods from Atlantic Canada to markets not only in the remainder of the nation but especially to markets in the northeastern United States. The people over at External Affairs should carry on negotiations with the United States to see how we could move goods from Atlantic Canada to the northeastern United States, an area with a tremendous population base which desires and requires the goods that are produced now. That movement should be made easier.
As well, an examination of the transportation policy could look into the tremendous shipping potential that is available in Atlantic Canada. Long before Confederation, maritimers realized that their greatest potential lay in the fact that they lived right beside the ocean. They realized that the world, and particularly Europe and the United States, was more readily accessible to them than to those in any other part of the country. We in the Maritimes utilized our shipping possibilities to an extent that they are not being utilized now. As a matter of fact, through duty-free ports and things of that nature, we are allowing other nations against which we compete to have an advantage over us. Without duty-free ports, we are attempting to compete with those nations and are finding that they are beating us almost every time. We must put in place new policies that allow the industrial sector to compete on an equal footing, in a way which they cannot at this time, with some of the other nations of the world. That is another example of what a transportation study could do for us.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the blueberry industry because at this time it is a big dollar producing industry in Atlantic Canada. The people involved in that industry have done a tremendous job in developing new markets as a result of their accessibility to the ocean.
I just got the sign which indicates to me that my 20 minutes are up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments related to the remarks of the hon. gentleman?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) on his speech. In light of the point that he made that there has not been a major study of Atlantic transportation issues for a long time, a point that I think is well taken, I wonder if the Hon. Member would think it advisable for the federal Government to establish a royal commission broadly representative of people in the public and private sectors of the Atlantic region and beyond to investigate certain transportation issues.
Such a commission could investigate, for example, the federal Government's steady cutbacks on maritime freight rate subsidies and the effect of those cutbacks on regional development. It could investigate the dismantling by the federal Government of the railway system throughout the region, including my Province of Prince Edward Island, and it could
Supply
investigate the steady deterioration under this Government of air service throughout the region, a service which can only get worse, I should think, with the sale by EPA of its assets to CP. In short, would the Hon. Member think it advisable for the federal Government to set up a royal commission to look into these and other transportation issues affecting the region?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point I was attempting to make in my speech. I tried to make the point that such a commission was needed, whether or not it was a royal commission.
It has concerned me over the years that even the MacPher-son Royal Commission did not undertake a really in-depth examination of transportation problems in Atlantic Canada. As a result, we see these aberrations like the examination that was undertaken by the Minister of Transport last year that lasted for six months. Then everything was put on hold and we were told after six months that the Government was not going to do anything one way or another with regard to assistance. However, it did almost totally eliminate any possibility of movement or expansion and it did impair the ability of the people who were affected by that particular subsidy to make any decisions at all.
Such an examination should certainly take air service into account. We hope that the Minister's recent announcement about the deregulation that comes with his new air policy will eliminate some of the problems to be caused by the amalgamation of CP and EPA that are envisaged by some people. I think the people in the area have a right to know what that deregulation will do and what guarantees will flow from it. They have a right to know if the various provinces will be served as well as or better than they are being served at this point in time.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure, but I think that when I posed my question, I may have referred to cutbacks on maritime freight rates. If I did say that, what I really meant was cutbacks on maritime freight rate subsidies. I hope that the Hansard reporter will record my meaning accurately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question to ask. I do not want to make a speech although I would like to make one in a few moments, if I may. The hon. gentleman was just about to mention a very important area for possible development in the rural areas of Atlantic Canada, that is the blueberry industry. I would like to know what the hon. gentleman was about to say when his time ran out.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. I will be very interested in his remarks regarding the fishery because I know that he has views that could be very helpful and valuable to the House in that regard.
I was going to say that there has been a tremendous expansion in the blueberry industry in my constituency as well as throughout Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am not sure

May 17, 1984
Supply
about the situation in Newfoundland but there should be a great potential for that industry there as well. Provincial governments have been of tremendous assistance in helping to move that product to New York and to Japan. When we see something like that happening, and we see movement, then I believe that there should be within our agricultural policy the ways and means through transportation policy or through some other area of agriculture-through the development of frozen food plants and things of that nature-to take greater advantage of it. I believe that a transportation study could look at a product similar to this, see how it is developed, see how it has taken off as far as sales are concerned, and see how we can assist it to a greater degree than at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions? For debate, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks. I am sorry that I was not present for all of the debate, but I had to leave halfway through this afternoon to chair the Fisheries and Forestry Committee meeting. However, I did listen to some of the remarks that were made prior to that committee meeting. I would like to make some direct reference to the general implications left by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and, generally speaking, to comment about the perceived intent of the subject matter of the motion before us.
First, there have been many times when provincial governments and federal politicians have said that with the elimination of DREE there has been a substantial reduction in agreements with provincial governments. If one goes back over the figures for the first year that the new system came into being, some $214.4 million was committed for the Atlantic region, whereas in the previous year, 1981-82, the figure stood at $155.9 million. We can do anything with figures as far as DREE and the set-up which we presently have are concerned. However, we must understand that just recently in Newfoundland, a new ten-year umbrella agreement was signed with the federal Government. That agreement will facilitate the same types of agreements that were in effect under DREE. Even without the ten-year umbrella agreement, we saw a continuation of cost-share agreements into foresty and into ocean industries-which was a recent initiative on the part of the federal Government with the provincial government. We have seen the same discussions on the rural development agreement and on tourism.
The rural development agreement between the federal Government and the Government of Newfoundland appears to be bogged down. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for St. John's West did not explain why that agreement was bogged down. The federal Government actually wanted to give more money to the development associations than did the provincial government. That is a fantastic idea on the part of the provincial government! The federal Government actually wanted to give
them more money each year. Now they have a dispute on what that amount of money will be.
I have always had a basic problem with the general development agreements that are signed with the provinces. It is this: What they have done over the years is to create a disparity within an area of regional disparity. We have had agreements signed over the years that saw infrastructure established not in the small rural communities or in the rural areas as much as in the urban areas. If we examine the general development agreements for infrastructure under DREE, we find that to be true in every province in Atlantic Canada. It is unfortunate. When a Member represents an area, as I do, where people must travel over dirt roads day and night, where people cannot paint their houses because of the dust flying in the middle of the summer, where people cannot travel the roads in the fall and in the spring because the mud is up to the axles, and where people cannot get from point A to point B where there might be paved roads without travelling over an extensive area of dirt roads, then the federal Government and the provincial Government of Newfoundland under DREE would sign a big, let us say $55 million, agreement, to put an arterial road into the City of St. John's. The rationale used was that the main roads were congested. As I travelled throughout the rural areas in my constituency and saw what people had to live with, I was not too concerned about whether or not someone took ten minutes longer getting home from work in the urban area. There does not appear to be any rationale to those agreements.
The biggest problem in my constituency of rural Newfoundland is drinking water. There is no other problem that is as big as that. We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of school children who drink water when they are home that is judged by the provincial Department of Health to have bacteria counts too numerous to mention. This is in 1984. That is the reality in certain communities. There are about 50 such communities in my riding where there is no running drinking water. Yet agreements have been signed by DREE to put water systems in the urban areas. The City of St. John's has a brand new water system because the level of the lake that it was using had dropped a few inches. I am not saying that it was not necessary to put in big infrastructure under DREE into our cities. I am not saying that. It was necessary. But there does not appear to be a mechanism to treat people fairly throughout a province like Newfoundland. It did not go to the root of the problem or to where the problem was worse than it was in urban areas.
That is basically what I find wrong with the system. What I found wrong with DREE is that agreements were signed, for example, in the fisheries infrastructure to build marine service centres. That is great. That is a fantastic idea. But in, each case the agreements were signed when the marine service centre was already finished or about to be finished. In other words, it amounts to this: all the general development agreements were made up by the provincial government to do things that the provincial government wanted to do. Not very often, if ever, would the federal Government say, "No, we are not going to cost-share this agreement". There was always the
May 17, 1984

rationale used that it was for economic development. We had to stretch the interpretation of economic development. I suppose we could say that if we did not have a road on stilts made of concrete going into a city, then perhaps we would not have as many tractor trailer loads of products going over that road. Perhaps that encouraged business indirectly. 1 did not find that DREE actually got to the point of doing what it was supposed to do.
Industrial parks came under the DREE agreements. Those parks were congregated in certain sections of each province. Again, it was something that could not be changed because it was a priority of the provincial government at the time.
1 recall that the Hon. Member for St. John's West who stood today to criticize the federal Government on development agreements was one of the key people who made sure that large sums of money went into the City of St. John's to the exclusion of some of the rural areas that I represent.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen under this new setup which the federal Government has brought in is a continuation of existing general development agreements with certain exclusions. However, I do not believe, Sir, that you could say there was a reduction in the amount of money. For example, we still continued to build industrial parks, but they were more diversified. In the Province of Newfoundland for the first time an industrial park went into the Town of Gander. Tenders will be called on that in the next couple of months. We went to areas where economic development should be encouraged, but we found that the same agreements continued which existed under the old system of DREE, plus some other initiatives which were much more exciting than those under the old DREE program.
I notice in some remarks made here by Government Members that mention was made of such things as the national recovery program, the scrap program, which were certain initiatives taken by the federal Government recently. However, I would like to point out to the House the areas which really need economic development, a national recovery project. For example, in the community of Dark Cove in my district, it would be a slipway. The national recovery program in a small community on the northeast coast would be a Canada Works grant to try to put in a water system. A national recovery program to another community might be the provision of a community hall. The reason for that, Sir, is that out of all the grandiose programs of the provincial and federal Governe-ments, about the only program in existence today which gets into the small rural communities, which does not have the tax base to become an incorporated town council and, thereby, does not qualify for normal municipal grants within the provincial structure, is the direct job-creation program, and that is it. If we looked at economic development today in the extreme rural areas of Newfoundland, for example, we would find that the biggest economic tool for that community is the direct job-creation program. That is it.
Supply
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes people ask why this job-creation money, this Canada Works money or Canada community development fund money, cannot all be put into economic development. That is what you normally hear in the smaller communities. One tends to think that the reason for the question is that that is the only money that actually gets into the smaller communities, perhaps out of a budget of $10 million for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. People in the community concerned say it is marvellous, and someone else will say, "Why can we not put that money into economic development?" That is only $10 million, Mr. Speaker, and the Newfoundland Government, for example, gets $800 million in equalization payments to do the very thing which the fellow is talking about. When you add up all of the transfer payments, it comes to something like 60 per cent of the provincial budget. There are provincial and federal Government Departments which are supposed to deal with economic development, but the only economic development tool is that little Canada Works grant that goes into that community.
I was amazed and shocked to hear the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who is such a popular fellow in his riding, a fellow who is supposed to understand what is needed for economic development in Newfoundland, make the statement that we must do away with direct job-creation programs. Before the next election, the people in those rural ridings will have to know if the Liberal Party is going to continue with these grants to the smaller communities. Is that its policy? And is it the policy of the Conservative Government to continue with these grants to the smaller communities? Because it is the only delivery agent for economic development we have in the extreme rural areas of eastern Canada. That is a poor reflection on the existing economic agreements which we have with provincial departments of economic and industrial development which are receiving over half their funds from the federal Government in equalization payments.
The other problem I have with the general thrust of the debate, Mr. Speaker, is that when one looks at what it is possible to do-the previous speaker from the Conservative Party referred to blueberry production-one looks at what can be done in the fishery, and then one realizes that most of those great fish companies which got into trouble were sending their fish down to the United States to be made into a finished product. Most of the problem existed with frozen cod blocks, but you cannot find a fish company, any multinational fish company in Newfoundland, which produces a finished product for the marketplace.
When we consider that our raw materials, our resources, are going to another nation to be made into the finished product, then we must realize we have a problem. And when we realize what the potential is, then we must ask ourselves how that can be corrected. We then get back to the basic question of who, jurisdictionally, is supposed to do what, when and where. We have in the Province of Newfoundland, for example, as we have in other provinces, a provincial government which controls the issuance of licences and what an industrialist is allowed to do on land. You then have the federal Government

May 17, 1984
Supply
controlling the actual resource, and never the two shall meet. Everyone agrees that one of the reasons why the fish companies got into trouble, and why we had such incredible lay-offs, was that too many processors' licences were issued in other parts of Newfoundland. The provincial government, not the province-and there is a distinction-was issuing licences everywhere. Something had to happen. I have no problem with the provincial government issuing those licences, Mr. Speaker, if the community had had a meeting and said, we want a processor's licence in this country to create employment. Instead of taking our fish and trucking them to another place, we want a processor's licence. This will create permanent employment in this community. You would have to be crazy not to agree with the people in the community, Mr. Speaker. In fact, if I were the provincial Minister of Fisheries I would have probably issued twice as many processors licences, because how can you deny the community employment? How can you deny the rationale that it is better to have the fish processed immediately rather than trucked down to some big multinational fish plant on the South Coast or the East coast?
But the problem is this. In Newfoundland, for example, which is different from Nova Scotia, a processor's licence does not mean you are going to process anything. That is the basic problem. It should not be called a processor's licence unless you are processing something. That has been our problem in the Newfoundland fishery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments related to the remarks of the hon. gentleman?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member, particularly with respect to the basic services required in a community in the Atlantic area to promote industrial development. I have never heard of an industry, whether it be fishing, manufacturing or any other activity, wanting to locate in an area which did not have adequate water supplies, sewer systems and other basic services. Those basic services become very much part of industrial development and expansion. When we think of assistance for industry, we often think of help in putting up buildings and other structures, and even assistance in obtaining working capital, but we sometimes get away from the very basic needs of communities.
I was interested to see that the Hon. Member has a problem which exists in my constituency of Halifax West, that being a lack of pure water supplies. Some areas in my constituency have water which is contaminated with arsenic. Other areas are contaminated with other deleterious substances, but arsenic is the principal culprit. Pure water is not available and the residents have a problem. Anyone looking at that area as a site for industrial expansion of course immediately looks elsewhere. I want to commend the Hon. Member for bringing to the attention of this House that these very basic requirements for services are important. Even though they are considered people
services, they are related to industrial development and expansion.
I want to ask the Hon. Member if he has any thoughts or ideas on how the federal Government might involve itself in these very basic problems. In the case of the arsenic contamination in parts of Halifax West, I would have thought that the Department of National Health and Welfare might intervene on the basis that it was a serious health hazard, and then take some specific action. The Minister has not taken that receptive an approach to the problem. But if it could be characterized as a factor which militates against industrial expansion, perhaps there are other Departments or agencies of Government which might get involved in order to assist in the development of the area. It is only with that development that you can have any real economic activity. Whether or not you link the economic activity today directly to that special problem, it is certainly a problem which affects the people involved in the activity. If the Hon. Member has any comments on what the Government might do in this area I would be pleased to hear them.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know from the Estimates for the Department of the Environment that there were three water systems put in this past year in certain parts of Canada. But I do not know how one would go about even applying for the money. It is done on the basis of fifty-fifty federal-provincial participation. But to answer the question, unfortunately and unless the federal Government were to pay the entire cost of the water system in most provinces, you could not have a water system installed in a small rural area. Unfortunately, financing the water systems by provincial governments is normally done on the basis of a bank loan or a loan from a provincially established bank. It is not usually government money. The interest is paid by the provincial government until the system is completed, at which time the province guarantees that the municipality will pay it back to the bank over a period of time. The problem you get into when you have a small community which is unincorporated, or if it were incorporated it probably could not make the payments, then the provincial government is not going to be too anxious to put in a water system. That is the unfortunate part of it.
The only way I can see in which the federal Government could put in a water system is to do exactly what the Hon. Member said. You need a water system in order to have anything happen in the community. I would say that that is where the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) should put some of the LEAD assistance which was newly approved by his Department. It is an excellent program. I think that is something they should look at. In fact, I have asked the Minister if we could not follow that same procedure in my constituency.
The basic problem is that we have provincial governments whose responsibility it is to provide pure drinking water and they are not doing it. Probably the biggest disgrace in this country is that we do not have adequate drinking water in this country today in 1984.
May 17, 1984


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment, and I know the Hon. Member will appreciate this as well. I think both he and I realize and recognize the subject we are talking about, but it occurred to me that others might not understand that in the undeveloped areas of the Province of Nova Scotia-and 1 gather from the Member that the same situation exists in Newfoundland-you cannot always have access to ground water through the drilling of a well, because that water is contaminated. In the Waverley area of Halifax West and in others the waters are contaminated, so you simply cannot gain access to pure water through the use of a well, which is the normal method. As my colleague has pointed out, in some cases in rural areas there is no municipal support for that kind of elaborate system which would normally be an urban type of development.
Perhaps the Hon. Member will agree with my comment that this is in a sense a rural problem. But if you do not solve it, the area will not only remain rural, it will remain totally undeveloped where otherwise it could be a viable area for development if that problem were solved.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up from the point where my colleague left off in his remarks earlier this afternoon on the motion in front of us when he referred to the role of international trade in Atlantic Canada to help us restore that level of activity which would tend to rid us of the disparity between us and the rest of Canada. It seems to me that the statistics with respect to international trade, their impact upon job creation, are sufficiently well known to government, to our officials and to our institutions. Some simple statistics, for example, show that for every billion dollars of new trade that we can develop in the export context we can create 16,000 or 17,000 jobs on average. With certain products the figure is much higher, or course, and with other products, much lower. I think we are beginning to reach up toward the $100 billion mark in export trade. Mr. Speaker, $1 billion or $2 billion of that export trade going out of Atlantic Canada would create 25,000 or 30,000 new long-term jobs and would, as my colleague says, rid us of most of our unemployment in Nova Scotia alone. It seems to me that that is an area to which the Government should perhaps start to turn its attention.
I have watched the evolutionary process of regional and economic expansion. I have watched successive governments struggle, with good intentions, with this problem of disparity between the regions. I have watched them move from rural programs to rural regional programs, to rural and agricultural programs, to rural and industrial programs, into simply regional development and now into regional industrial development. We still have not got a handle on it. I suppose that historians may say that 10 or 12 ad hoc programs were considered, put into place and tried. However, they were all found wanting. I do not condemn, out of hand, ad hockery, trial and error, because it is a difficult problem in the sense that we recognize that each step of the way the measures we have put in place
Supply
have not in fact worked. The gap is still there and is widening.
I suppose that what I am going to suggest is yet another piece of ad hockery, if you will. Nevertheless, I think it is something to which we should seriously direct our attention over the next 10 or 15 years.
A lot of the development money which comes into our region is lost. Our attempts to develop an industrial base, a secondary manufacturing base, the fishery, the forestry and agriculture, have been failures, to one degree or another. When we put a new water system into metropolitan Halifax, we spend $40 million or $45 million on it. We do not make the pipe in Atlantic Canada. We do not make the valves, gaskets or pumps. We do not make the electrical wiring which goes into the building which houses the pump that turns the motor. The slippage is extra-ordinarily high. On Pockwock alone, about 15 years ago, the slippage was very close to 90 per cent. While it seemed as though we were getting an awful lot of help, in fact all we got was some money to pay for labour content, to buy some bricks and perhaps a bit of concrete. However, we have no legacy from that, other than the infrastructure itself. We needed it and I am not condemning that.
We now know that of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent offshore, only 20 per cent may stay. The other 80 per cent goes somewhere else. It does not stay in Atlantic Canada. There is no legacy of permanent employment. Those are just two examples. What else can we do? We have tried help in the agricultural sector. We have tried it in industry and manufacturing. It does not work. We will have to put money back into Devco one way or another to put those men back to work.
I am not talking about the ongoing things which we must do. I will talk about what we should be doing. The Minister responsible for manpower wants to put $11 billion into retraining. That is great. That will go a long way to help. Let us find out what it is that Canada can sell. Let us start so that 10 years from now the research will have been completed and we will know what we can market abroad. Atlantic Canada is in a position to sell offshore. We do not have the technology. We do not even know what the markets are.
I reject those who ask how they can research and develop a product and make it marketable if we do not know what we want to sell. We have not started. Let us start to identify our goals. We could take some of the money which we have been putting into GDAs and into the sub-agreements under them. The Minister spoke today about how they rise and fall because they are definitive programs which have a beginning, a peak and a decline. They start and they end. Let us use the concept of having a beginning, a peak and an end with respect to investment in market and product identification and the technology which would be required to put the products that are identified into the markets which are identified. Let us discover whether in Atlantic Canada we can develop an additional $2 billion in export sales. We are on the water. Why not take advantage of the sea? I am not talking about money to develop products for consumption in an already saturated central market or a midwestern or northeastern U.S. market. I am

May 17, 1984
Supply
talking about markets that can be developed, such as the Caribbean basin, South America and Africa. That is Atlantic Canada's natural target area. It seems to me that for a relatively minor investment with the technology we have available to us we could identify those markets and their needs. I think we could be highly competitive.
As a Nova Scotian and a Canadian I would like to see the disparity between our regions end. I would like to see our accounts balanced in one way or another. We are net importers of our food. In Atlantic Canada, we have a $4 billion challenge in agriculture alone just to meet our own needs. I would like to see us meet those. I would like us to be able to settle the accounts of our own Atlantic provinces. We are out of balance in our own four Atlantic provinces. While some are more out of balance than others, collectively we are out of balance with the rest of the country. In fact, we are so out of balance that it will not be good enough to continue with the traditional, slowly evolving process.
I commend to the Government and those interested the idea of putting some seed money to work in national research, through a professional resource or institutional process, that could be put to use in Atlantic Canada to develop that type of product which is required there with traditional Canadian materials. We could identify the amount of research money required for the development of the products that we determine are necessary and then get on with the small infrastructure that would support that development.
We need permanent long-term jobs. While jobs at minimum wage and summer jobs are helpful, our young married families need jobs. If we are talking in terms of $100 billion in export sales, I suggest we could use $2 billion of that in areas that we could identify in Atlantic Canada. I commend that thought to my colleagues.
I make these suggestions because as I have watched DREE and its programs evolve over the years, I have not been able to forget a conversation that I had around 1963 with two gentlemen who were asked by the government of the day to prepare the next logical step in Mr. Diefenbaker's Atlantic development concept. That is where this evolution began. I thought it very strange and somewhat sad at the time, and still do, when they told me that the terms of reference with respect to their work clearly indicated that they were open-ended with no restrictions. Their only guideline was to devise programs that would quickly return the money they would have to spend in Atlantic Canada back to central Canada. That was their interpretation of the comprehensive guidelines. They were to devise programs but at the same time ensure that the money spent gets back to central Canada.
I suppose that I am not old enough to be so cynical as to believe that that is the cause of the failure of the programs. But it is certain that the programs have failed and the gap is widening. The so-called brain drain is still there. It is not that our children want to leave but that they must leave. This particular suggestion may not work and it might not be
possible to achieve it. However, if we are going to attempt to establish various programs, let us try to see if there is an institutional process which could examine this proposal to see if it can be used. If it does prove favourable, it can be funded and we can begin to create those needed jobs.
Atlantic Canadians today, as I suppose they were 50 or 100 years ago, are proud people. We do not like being in debt. We do not like to say jokingly that everything is fine, just keep the money coming and keep the transfer accounts as high as possible. We are not accustomed to living like that, nor are we accustomed to hand-outs. On the other hand, we cannot always do things for ourselves that we know must be done.
It is to address that problem that I urge the House to contemplate offshore trade seriously. In one area alone, we spend 10 per cent of the value of goods on their transportation. Probably 80 per cent of that, with respect to export, is waterborne costs. Therefore, there is a possible recovery of $6 billion or $7 billion alone if we had the nerve to strive for our own offshore fleet. This would mean a re-emergence and gradual regrowth of a Canadian merchant marine, which would be a start in itself. Perhaps there is a conceptual approach within that suggestion.
I am simply saying that funds are available. As well, there is a private sector responsibility with respect to the development of offshore activity in trade. Perhaps there is even a greater responsibility by Government. But it is from Parliament that the lead must come.
The only observation I wanted to make with respect to the debate today is that the issue we are discussing is serious. We must find a way to overcome the difficulties of employment. Unemployment among our black community is a perfect example. Re-entry into the labour force for black women who have left it to raise a family is probably 1,000 times as difficult as it is for white women. We are not addressing that problem. Let us attempt to find in offshore development and trade a means of creating jobs to give these people a hope that is rightfully theirs.
I appreciate the time that the House has given in listening to me. I ask the House only to give my remarks some thought.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the Hon. Member's address very much. I regret that the Minister responsible was not here to listen to some of these excellent suggestions.
The Hon. Member talked about the necessity for training and deplored the lack of training. How can we expect to have this training when Bill C-12 reduced the amount of postsecondary entitlements for the four Maritime provinces by $24.8 billion over one year ago? Since it is reduced, how will we catch up with training?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 26(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
May 17, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the adjournment debate provides me with an opportunity to place before the House of Commons a matter which has caused great difficulty and consternation in the City of Halifax, that is the construction of a federal office complex for the City of Halifax in the federal constituency of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan). I suppose this federal office complex could be described as the mystery of the April 1983 Budget. It was announced by the Minister for International Trade in late April, 1983 as part of the Special Recovery Capital Projects program, which was a major feature of the Budget of the Minister of Finance of April 19, 1983.
When the Minister for International Trade made the announcement of this office complex he indicated that it would be a $51.3 million building. He said that the multi-building complex would contain a series of low-rise structures and would be built on land owned by the provincial Halifax-Dart-mouth Waterfront Development Corporation. Whether that is a proper designation of that party, I do not know, but it was made clear that the building was to be constructed on the Halifax waterfront.
What was not made clear was the information contained in the document which I have before me. It is an internal government document, authorized by one Ken Mackay. He said in that document dated November 28, 1983 that the Halifax federal building was not a $51 million building as indicated by the Minister for International Trade, but in fact a $4.97 million project which involved a lease-purchase agreement. Right at the outset there was some question whether the Minister was being less than honest in announcing the project. However, that is not the problem today. The problem today is whether this $51 million building, which was to provide a thousand construction jobs, will ever occur.
The next piece of information I have to offer the House of Commons arrived in February 1984, almost one year later, when the Minister of International Trade again called the press into conference and said that there would not be an office complex on the Halifax waterfront, but that there would be a more elaborate but less expensive complex on Gottingen Street in the City of Halifax. He was very proud of this new complex. He paid no attention to the fact that $20 million was lost in the shuffle from the first announced office complex to the new office complex announced in February 1984. He was joined by the Mayor of Halifax, an eminent Halifax Liberal and former member of the provincial legislature, who said that it was one of the most exciting complexes which the City of
Adjournment Debate
Halifax could imagine. He saw no problem with the change in site. He saw no problem in the reduction of the expenditure from $50 million to $30 million. No one commented on the number of jobs which would be lost by this reduction, and on they went.
The problem was that the Minister for International Trade in making the announcement forgot all about the place at which the building was to be sited. He just assumed that by some magical process this would become the property of the Government of Canada and they would go ahead with the construction which he estimated would take place within a few months; that is to say, Nova Scotians would be put to work on this Special Recovery Capital Projects program involving the construction of the building announced as part of the Budget of April 1983. That is not to be the case at all.
Now the announcement comes forward that the expropriation, which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) instituted to acquire the land to build this $30 million building on the new site, has been attacked, it has been challenged. It is unlikely that this expropriation will ever take place because the owners of the property who are now employing people and creating jobs and activity do not want to give up the site. It is a simple exercise in property rights. They are saying, "No. Sorry federal Government, but we want to keep these properties that we have utilized for many years in our businesses and activities." The federal Government, through the Department of Public Works, has to defend its right to expropriate. I am sure the courts of law involved in this transaction will say, "No. Go find your own land."
The proposition now comes forward that there is to be a new site for this project, a third site. Meantime, all kinds of objections have been raised. While the Mayor of the City of Halifax said it was a wonderful project, according to a newspaper report in February, 1984, however, and I quote:
Halifax Alderman Don Le Blanc says the decision to build a $30 million federal building at Gottingen and Cogswell Streets is impractical and illogical.
Experts brought before the hearing with respect to the expropriation said this is not the place to put that kind of a building, that it will not help North End redevelopment. What has happened is that we seem to be engaged in some kind of a publicity manoeuvre and machination by the Minister for International Trade. There apparently, will not as of this date, be a federal office complex built in Halifax.


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in greater detail to the question put by the Hon. Member on March 16 with respect to the construction of the federal building in Halifax.
When my hon. friend, the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Regan) first announced the construction of the building in question, our plans were for a project that would cost about $51 million, $50,795,000, to be exact. However, we then had

May 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate
to consider the impact the project would have on the owners of the buildings where public servants in the Halifax region are accommodated at the present time. Everyone finally realized that the owners would be put under undue pressure if all public servants that could be accommodated in the complex were to move at the same time. Indeed, the resulting vacancy rate in private sector office buildings would have caused a number of problems.
That is why, after reviewing the situation, we decided to reduce the scope of the project by about half, so as to eliminate most of the problems that could be expected, while at the same time meeting the need for bringing a number of public servants under the same roof.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, we tried to acquire the land required to build this project. The harbour front property mentioned by the Hon. Member was our first choice, but public reaction indicated that a building of this kind on the waterfront was unacceptable, especially since originally, the project was to include a laboratory for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in addition to the general purpose office building. It has now been decided that the Fisheries and Oceans laboratory will remain in its present location. We have also managed to find another location that will suit our needs. The property is on the corner of Cogswell and Gottingen. The choice of this site received the unanimous support of the municipal authorities, and it will definitely help to revitalize the Gottingen Street neighbourhood. We have published notice of our intention to expropriate, and work will start as soon as we have obtained title to the land.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that thanks to this project, we expect to create more than 500 jobs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-UNITED STATES-OIL DRILLING LEASES OFF COAST OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. (B) CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in my question of May 15, page 3734 of Hansard I asked the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs about the protest note recently sent to the United States, last week I believe, over the proposed oil drilling leases being put out to tender to interested U.S. petroleum companies in the area of the Dixon Entrance off the British Columbia northern coast. I received anything but a satisfactory answer. My question raised not only the sovereignty concerns but environmental concerns as well.
Let me explain. The area for lease as cited by the Federal Register of the United States for March 30 at page 12763 extends into waters over which Canada has a claim. It seems as though the United States Government is also claiming waters in that area. In other words, the area is in dispute. Jurisdiction over this area is not fully determined. Therefore, it
seems to me that the United States is building its case and Canada is to be commended for counterclaiming by means of a protest note and for strengthening the case for its claim.
That is fine for now, but the Canadian Government was asleep at the switch when hearings relating to the whole lease area were held in Alaska during the week of February 13, 1984, as cited by the Federal Register, the American counterpart to The Canada Gazette. Where was the Canadian Government then? Why was it not at the hearings? Why did it not make representations to the U.S. Government at those hearings?
The area about which hearings were being held at that time is exactly the same area over which the protest is now being made three months later. Aside from the sovereignty question over lands which Canada has claims, important as that question may be, there are Canadian environmental concerns implicit in any hydrocarbon exploration in the area which may be put up to lease. That is another reason for Canada's attendance at those earlier meetings which were called by the Department of the Interior.
The lease area blocks off, as it were, access to the open sea for Canadian salmon spawned in the Stikine, the Nass and the Skeena Rivers, just as it blocks off access for mature and spawning fish heading up those streams to do the thing that comes naturally; that is to spawn, fertilize eggs and produce more salmon. That area is up for lease to petroleum exploration companies and there could be environmental concerns.
Canada's interests are at issue. Why was Canada therefore not represented at the hearings in Alaska which were held in February 1984? Why has Canada only now awakened to the threat to Canadian sovereignty?
As far as I can tell, the salmon question was taken into account only as recently as this weekend. I asked for a copy of the note that was presented to the Government of the United States in protest over the sovereignty issue, and I asked if it covered the environmental issue. As I say, I did not receive a satisfactory answer. The Minister did not seem to know.
I do hope that the Hon. Member who is replying for the Minister will be able to say that that note will be made available to Canadians so that they will know how strongly the Government is protesting on the sovereignty issue, and whether or not it is protesting on the environmental issue. If it is not, I do hope that a second note will be sent making it clear to the United States authorities that there is an environmental issue as well, that there is a threat to the salmon stocks that spawn in Canadian streams, go through the archipelago, which is now a part of the Alaska panhandle, into the Gulf of Alaska to the Pacific Ocean. That is a legitimate cause for protest and I do hope that a second note will cover that issue if the first note did not.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister and
May 17, 1984

Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and also of his Parliament Secretary (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet), I am pleased to answer the concerns of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who is to be commended for raising this matter. Regarding that famous diplomatic note that should have been sent to the United States and that indeed has been, concerning the leases to be put out by the United States Government of the West Coast, 1 would like to point out that these leases do not involve the area inside Dixon Entrance. Rather, they lie West of the Entrance. No agreement was reached on the maritime boundary between our two countries. The Canadian Government considers unacceptable the action taken by the United States to put out leases in that area.
The diplomatic note does not cover the question of jurisdiction. Clearly, Canadian environment laws and regulations apply to areas under Canadian jurisdiction. In March 1979, Canada and the United States signed two treaties: a treaty concerning fishery resources on the East Coast, and a treaty under which the dispute concerning the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area is subject to mandatory resolution. The United States have not ratified the fishery agreement, and it has never been implemented. On the other hand, in 1981 the United-States Senate ratified the boundary agreement, under which the dispute concerning the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine would be referred to a division of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Canada and the United States have just concluded the presentation of their case, and a decision is expected next summer or early next fall at the latest.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-WEST REGION TRIBAL COUNCIL. (B) VALLEY RIVER INDIAN BAND-PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE BALLAST PIT
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question pursues the one I raised on May 4, in respect to which I believe the Minister responding inadvertently misled me. He was referring to meetings other than the one I asked about. Perhaps it was the right answer for the wrong question.
However, on May 4 I asked why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) had not yet responded to the West Region Tribal Council and Chiefs of the Crane River, Ebb and Flow, Pine Creek Waterhen and Valley River budget submissions which were presented to the Minister directly, in person, on March 29, when he had promised a response within 15 days.
My office was in contact with the West Region Tribal Council this afternoon and they have not yet received a reply. When will that reply be forthcoming? I am sure the Minister understands that this budget request is a very serious matter. The amount proposed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not adequate to meet the combined funding needs of the bands.
Adjournment Debate
At the March 29 meeting, the Minister promised to respond to the Pine Creek's education budget proposal in ten days. There was no reply. When will there be a reply? I would like to quote from their letter to me. It reads:
We presented our budget to Mr. Munro on March 29, 1984. . .. Our of Meeting, the Chief and Representatives of the Education Authority were informed that the Minister's office would get back to them in ten days.
To date we received no response from his Department.... The Department agrees with Local Control of Education on reserves and have said so many times, both to this Band and nationally; but when it comes to funding this program, either there is no money or all programs are based on a formula.
In my supplementary question I asked about the Valley River ballast pit. When will this long-outstanding matter be settled? The Minister and the Department are aware of the details of this matter, and how the gravel over the past two years for the Band has actually cost more than the price the pit would cost to purchase.
Once again, and I will continue if need be, I call upon the Minister and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to act immediately to secure this piece of land for the Valley River Indian Band under the Department's native land claims program. I trust and hope that the response from the Parliamentary Secretary will be more complete, and will give some positive response to this issue.


André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for the Manitoba constituency of Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) said that he is concerned about the financing of the West Region Tribal Council and the purchase of a ballast pit for the Valley River Indian Band.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is providing financial assistance to the West Region Tribal Council for the over-all management of its programs. I am happy to note that the Minister has approved in principle a new funding policy for the Tribal Council. Part of the additional funds which the Department needs to implement this policy have been allotted. The Minister has also announced that he plans to ask the Treasury Board for assistance to Tribal Councils throughout the country during the current fiscal year.
As for the purchase by the Valley River Band of a ballast pit located on their reservation, the Department is willing to provide assistance if the price corresponds to the market value. However, the owner is asking without any justification a price that is much higher than the estimated value.
Purchasing the pit is therefore not justified under these conditions. However, departmental officials in the Manitoba region are still willing to meet with the owner to negotiate any reasonable price. They will also encourage the Band Council to continue its own negotiations.

May 17, 1984
Adjournment Debate
With respect to the financial problems affecting the schools administered by the bands, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is defining comparability in the field of education on the basis of the impact of schooling on the educational level of people whose culture, language and capabilities are different. This modern concept emphasizes the comparability of results and the social and economic fall-outs.
However, there are urgent problems which need to be solved. We recognize the fact that providing comparable services and obtaining comparable academic results depend on certain unique factors which represent the most important challenge for schools placed under the authority of the bands and those under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Among these factors, there is the fact that most Indian schools are small and that many of them are located in isolated areas which are often accessible only by plane; there are also cultural and especially linguistic factors which require the development of special programs and the hiring of teachers with the proper qualifications.
During the last few months, the Department and the Indian leaders have examined the present situation in the field of
education and they have agreed that much remains to be done in terms of program development, personnel retraining, special programs aimed at exceptional students, school facilities and global management framework. Some problems are fundamentally structural ones and will be resolved in the longer term within the bilateral process and through the Assembly of First Nations' Secretariat.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. John Munro, has initiated the process with a view to obtaining the funding required to address the more immediate problems that were underlined by the Indian authorities responsible for education and by the regional representatives of the Department. In initiating this action, the Minister has set up a goal consistent with one of the fundamental values of Canadian society, that is, equal access to education as a basic right for all citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
At 6.24 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME III