1985-05-14

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and the Legislatures by failing to use industrial, decentralization, agricultural, transportation and equalization policies as well as its Crown Corporations to further economic development in all communities across Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in one of the more unusual and quixotic episodes in the history of this Parliament, we are now in the fourth straight day of opposition resolutions. Perhaps the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has had a curious bit of absence of mind and has simply not realized that his agenda is now being dominated by the legislative and policy agendas of the opposition Parties. On the other hand, perhaps it is more that the Government has taken a look at its own legislation and has realized just how awful it is and is afraid to bring it forward for any further public examination. Perhaps the Government will now withdraw most of its legislation, as we have been suggesting it do, because it simply does not match up, or perhaps this is simply the calm before the storm. Perhaps government Ministers are now cowering in their bunkers awaiting the Gotterdammerung of the Budget which will take place on May 23 and are simply using this period to lull the Canadian public into forgetting that the Government is no longer a part of the fabric of our society because it is obviously afraid to face Parliament with any form of legislative agenda.
I can only speculate on these things. I would not want to draw any firm conclusions. However, I think all Members of the House would recognize that this is one of the more unusual kinds of House strategies, and it is with some interest that I would request of members of the Conservative caucus, when they meet with their Ministry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I question the relevance of the Hon. Member's speech. He has hardly begun, and he is already off on a tangent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I almost set a new record. It took me only 45 seconds to get the Hon. Member on her feet with totally extraneous and superficial points of order to which no one pays any attention. Aside from that, I am sure there will be many other opportunities during the course of my remarks for the Hon. Member to get sufficient exercise by hopping up and down in her chair like a certain kind of seat-cover.
The fact of the matter is that this resolution is attempting to draw attention in a fundamental way to the fact that within a week's time, we hope we will be faced for the first time with the Conservative economic agenda. I hope Hon. Members opposite recognize what an historic moment that will be. Ministers of the Crown will no longer be able to use their normal repertoire of blaming everything on the nasty Grits. They will have to learn a whole new script. They will not be able to rise any longer and say that they inherited all these problems. For the first time, they will have to put forward to the Canadian people exactly what it is that they believe in.


Mr. Dick:: What do you?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would say that the "member for Mitel" is a little noisy this morning. If I were him, I would be a little more careful about what I had to say, because we are going to make some comments about him later on.
Come next week, the Government will finally have to "fess up". It is going to have to show its commitment to keeping all those many hundreds of promises it made. The great negotiator and promise-maker, otherwise known at times as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), will have to put his cards on the table and show the Canadian people that he meant what he said last summer.
Time and time again, we have seen the most convoluted form of political acrobatics ever witnessed by the Canadian public performed by the pretender Prime Minister while he is trying to evade his commitments and promises. We have seen more dancing on the floor of the House of Commons than one will see in an all-night ballroom as Ministers of the Crown have done a remarkable minuet trying to evade and avoid the kind of responsibilities for economic leadership that we assumed they would take.

May 14, 1985
Supply
We will see the clear obligation of the Government to fill the many economic vacuums which exist. There are more economic potholes in the agenda of this Government than there are on the unpaved roads of the Yukon. That is why the Conservatives lost that election yesterday.


Mr. Stevens:: What about the Liberals?


Lloyd Axworthy: We did very well. I am glad the Minister raised that. Guess which seat the Liberals won in the Yukon election? The seat of Faro, which is the site of the Cyprus-Anvil mine which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has done such a wonderful job of pushing into the ground. I would like to thank the Minister personally for giving us the opportunity to win that seat. We won it because of his inaction.
We on this side can be pleased with the Minister because his record of inaction, indecision and vacillation on a whole front of economic activities is one of the primary reasons for which the Conservative Party is in full retreat across the country, in every province and Territory. That is why it is losing elections and its popular vote is in retreat. I think it is incumbent upon the Liberal Party to give full credit where it is due, and a large part of the credit is due to that Minister.
O)
The people of the country are realizing that the Minister does not understand regional economic development. Not only does he not understand it, he does not care about it. We only have to look at the statements which he has made. Last week he gave a wonderful presentation to The Financial Post. The article described the grand new industrial strategy, compliments of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. However, if we study what he is proposing, we realize that he is proposing the elimination of industrial grants to small businesses and replacing them with tax incentives. That may be fine in the region which he represents, but when he begins to withdraw industrial grants from businesses in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, western Canada and northern Ontario, it will mean that there will no longer be economic activity in those areas. There cannot be tax credits when taxes are not being paid because there is not enough economic activity to support them. Anyone who has any experience, understanding or anyone who cares about the requirement of the federal Government to provide parity and equity across Canada would know that. But the Minister in The Financial Post statement said that he had a grand new design. What is curious is that the "Minister for free enterprise", as he likes to portray himself, put forward in that article far more drastic interventionism than any Liberal Minister ever considered. The Minister is going to dictate to different industrial sectors their long-term plans.
The Minister loves to stand in the House and berate our poor socialist friends. Yet the Minister is prescribing far more direct social economic planning than anything our socialist friends in the NDP would consider. The Minister is a mass of contradictions wrapped up in a ball of enigma warped in a
hazy gray mass of indecision-if I may use a somewhat loose interpretation of Mr. Churchill's famous statement.
What we are discovering is that this Government does not have an economic development policy which is directed toward the priorities of the country. For example, yesterday in the House questions were asked which related to the takeover of Mitel by a British telecommunications firm. What was very clear was the total absence of any policy or prescription to deal with Canadian involvement, investment and control of its own high technology industry. Every economic commentator will tell us that that industry must provide the cutting edge in terms of international competition. It is an area which has incredible growth potential. It is an area in which Canadians have been able to formulate and develop some of the most interesting and innovative products in the world. It has been nine months since the Government has come into power with its so-called "open Sesame" invitation to foreign investors. Now we are seeing the takeover of that intrinsic, generic and effective Canadian industry by foreign investors. The Minister has no response. He does not have a policy and he does not know what to do. He is now being caught in his own contradiction of saying: "Let's just have wide open foreign investment". That investment will not bring new development to the country, it will simply take over the existing investment. It is sad because there is nothing in place to offer opportunity, encouragement or incentive to Canadian investors. Look at the anomaly. Bell Canada enterprises, a major Canadian telecommunications firm, is putting up $1.5 billion to buy an oil company but we have to rely upon a British telecommunications company to come over and invest in our own telecommunications industry. If Mitel needed new capital, why did the Minister not take some responsibility directly in working with Canadian investors to provide the necessary capital? He said, "Hands ofF', yet in the Financial Post article he said, "No, hands on. I'm going to require individual companies and industrial sectors to provide a 15-year plan in order to provide for long-term development", except in the high-tech industry and in another wide range of industries, which we will take full opportunity in this debate to draw to the attention of the House.
What we are saying is that the real sacred trust of this Government should be the effective allocation and direction of economic development across the regions of Canada. Yet what we have seen and witnessed in the past nine months is a total abdication of that responsibility and an unwillingness to use the powers, resources and investment possibilities of the federal Government in order to provide for effective leadership. Even its friends are losing patience. Beginning today in Grande Prairie, the western premiers have on their agenda a clear-cut item dealing with the lack of federal consultation on economic development matters. For instance, its friend, Grant Devine, the Premier of Saskatchewan, is saying that what they are really afraid of is that in next week's Budget the federal Government, through the Nielsen task force, is going to slash, hack and cut away at all kinds of economic programs and the
May 14, 1985

provinces will have to pick up the slack. And Mr. Nielsen and his task force have not even had the courtesy to consult with their friends, the provincial Premiers.
What an incredible contradiction, Mr. Speaker! All the western papers are saying that neither the Nielsen task force nor, I presume, the western Ministers, have bothered to sit down with their cohorts in the western provinces to decide on what they can provide joint action. That is on the agenda. It is not the agenda of the Official Opposition; it is the agenda of the western Premiers who are complaining mightily of the lack of consultation. Yet this is the Government which came into office promising that there would be full and open discussion and open sharing of information and responsibility-except with the western Premiers. They seem to have been left out of this grand plan of the economic Ministers. They have not been included in this development. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), just as he has avoided the issues of the native people, women and the regions, is now avoiding the provincial Premiers.
I want to know who the Minister is really talking to. We are fully aware he does not talk to his caucus. I presume he is musing with some past ghosts of ages gone by. I know where the muses are, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has said that his particular idol is C.D. Howe, a former Liberal. That is who the Minister wants to emulate. He has a fat chance of doing that because he got off to a very poor start.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this Government is a fraud. It is not living up to the kind of spirit of co-operation it talks about. It is not consulting with the provinces. It is going to bring down the Budget next week based upon, I believe, the hidden agenda, which will be to make a number of severe reductions in federal government programs and throw the buck back at the provincial Governments. It is going to assume that the provincial Governments will pick up the slack. The onus will be thrown back on the provinces to carry the economic responsibilities of this country. This is a Government that does not want to take responsibility. It does not want to face up to its obligations.
Let me speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about the Economic Regional Development Agreements, the ERDA programs, two major Liberal initiatives which were brought in about a year and a half or two years ago in order to provide for a coherent framework of economic development. I know the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and other Ministers take all the credit for delivering programs under ERDA. They stand up and say, "Look at the wonderful thing we have done in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec and others", based upon a program that we brought in and a Budget that we set aside. The regional development fund that was set aside in the previous Estimates has provided the financial allocation for which this Government is now taking credit. At the same time, it is trying to take credit for the results under that program, it is substantially undermining the spirit of the program. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion lost $200 million on the IRD Program in the November statement.
Supply
Who did that affect? It affected about 80 per cent of the communities in this country which could no longer have tier one funding. The major economic centres in every province across Canada are no longer able to find grants and supports for expansion or new business in their regions. That has been the result of this Minister's responsibility.
Equally, you find in the development of the ERDA program a total and complete lack of action in key areas of the provinces. Western Canada has been waiting for months for some kind of an agreement with the Province of British Columbia. The forestry industry is virtually past its seeding season and nothing has been signed. Negotiations that proceeded and were about to be signed have now been totally forestalled and held up for nine or ten months. It is inexplainable, these kinds of hesitations, lack of action and lack of progress.
Let me point to an example in my province which goes back to the resolution. We had provided as one of the initiatives in the Province of Manitoba the development of the National Research Council Institute of Manufacturing Technology. The reason for providing that was to provide a national centre of research and development in robotics and the newest area of research and technology for small business to move into high technology areas. It was a centre planned to provide opportunities for business, universities and engineers in the private sector to become involved. The building was constructed and the plans were in place.
In the November 8 statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cut off totally all funding for that program. The provincial Government, industrialists, the universities and Members of the Opposition began to raise questions expressing their concern about this matter. The Conservatives rushed together, huddled together and said, "Don't worry, we will look after that". Seven months later, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) came to my province and, in one of the great all-time jokes, said, "What I am going to do is set up a committee and have another nine months study of the program". In the meantime, we have lost a number of major businesses that were going to relocate in Winnipeg because of that centre. There is a total discredit of that kind of program. Conservative Members of Parliament are saying that it would have been a closed laboratory. That means they did not read the original prescription.
That is a complete abdication of responsibility for Members of Parliament from Manitoba, not even to have read the original plans, goals and objectives of that centre to know what is going on. They now go around saying something totally different. It is a joke, a travesty,and a transgression that simply points out that this Government has no understanding, care, sensitivity or willingness to try to provide the federal resources in its Crown agency to get involved in plans for economic development.
We have a lack of leadership and direction in the whole transportation agreement with the Province of Manitoba. The

May 14, 1985
Supply
Minister in charge of the Wheat Board says that we will deliver some grain, but he is not sure how much. There is no willingness to give direction, set goals and go ahead with the original program. As a result, it is working on idle. The opportunity in that province to establish major opportunities in transportation, the construction of new prototype grain cars, developing the port as an alternative, moving ahead in the urban transportation area, and using those agreements to give that region an opportunity for economic growth and development is again put in low gear. Nothing is happening. There is no direction, no leadership, no purpose.
Clearly, the point of this resolution is to say that we have a Government that does not understand economic development. It has not provided any leadership in this area. It is forcing the regions to rely upon their own resources by relinquishing the federal role. The Budget on May 23, on the basis of evidence we have seen until now, will be built on the backs of the poorer provinces and the poorer regions. This Opposition is opposed to it. We are simply giving notice now that they have a week to change that Budget. We hope they take our good advice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or
comments?


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I have much empathy with the Hon. Member because we have just heard an anguished cry from purgatory. The demons are at work. We do not know how long the term in purgatory will be, but we sincerely hope that the Member will survive his stint there because it is good for his soul. I think that we are all concerned with souls ultimately.
I believe we have had a lecture on regional industrial expansion. It was a little difficult to track some of it. I would point out to the House that the people of Manitoba were not fooled by regional industrial expansion in their region on September 4. There was certainly a basket of goodies for the Winnipeg-Fort Garry riding, but the people in the other 13 ridings in that province reacted otherwise. We have also had a dissertation on robotics. I believe that the Party opposite can give us some expert advice on robotics since it has practised that art for so many years.
On a more positive note, Mr. Speaker, I will point out one clear example of good results achieved from federal-provincial consultation in these days of economic difficulty. That example is the Cold Regions Laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta. The funding of that laboratory was cut in the November economic statement as part of sharing the pain across the country. I have had the privilege of participating in an alternative plan to revivify that very worth-while project as a combined operation among federal and provincial Governments and the private sector. I am happy to say that it is well on its way to revival and will be fulfilling its role as it should. That is an example of an NRC project that is being revived. That type of consultation did take place prior to the Grande Prairie meeting of Premiers. With this Government it is taking place hourly, daily, weekly, and continually.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) like to respond?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in what is becoming a pattern of total absence of mind, the Hon. Member neglected to ask a question. However, I will be glad to answer it anyway because I know what he was aiming at. In his last set of remarks he fell back on the great premise that there is a wild and wonderful system of consultation. I would like him to comment on another independent objective source, The Western Producer. This newspaper is read by virtually all grain producers in the prairie region. The headline reads, "Uncertainty about future bothers many groups". Once again the Canadian agricultural community is in a total state of uncertainty because of the lack of consultation by the Government on agricultural programs. The article reads:
A large part of the unease flows from ignorance and confusion about the Conservative agenda for agriculture mainly because Minister John Wise has yet to articulate a clear vision of where he wants to take the industry.
That is not my comment, Mr. Speaker. That is the comment of very respected observers of the Canadian agricultural scene. Conservative Members are living in a fantasy land where there is daily and hourly consultation. They are simply drinking each other's bathwater. I presume they are talking to one another. At least I hope they are talking to someone rather than being in total isolation tanks. It is clear that they are not talking about what is going on in the country to the Canadians who really count. The provincial Premiers say they did not talk to the Government. Now the farm groups say that they are not talking to it. To whom is the Government talking?
Therefore, I ask the question in return: if consultation is taking place, is it a secret society that is being consulted? Do you have to belong to the Mulroney Club in order to be consulted in this country? Does one have to anteup to the Mulroney Club before one can be consulted?
Obviously in western Canada the major groups are not being consulted. Their interests are not being looked after, as we have seen in the House with the antics of the Nielsen group who have been making all kinds of recommendations that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) knows nothing about. Obviously the Ministers of the Crown are not being consulted.
Therefore, I return to my original point. The Hon. Member, in all his interest of having a good policy emerge from the Budget, as I am sure it is his interest, should use his opportunity in the caucus tomorrow to raise the questions he has raised in the House today with his own Ministers.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Has the Hon. Member ever talked to his Liberal friends in western Canada? Indeed, is he aware that there have been six in-depth meetings with his friend, the Mayor of the City of Edmonton, which were initiated by federal Members of Parliament, to discuss matters of mutual
May 14, 1985

interest from which some very concrete results have flowed and will continue to flow?


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who has a distinguished track record when it comes to economic development when he was a Minister in the former Government.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment on the operative word of the Throne Speech, which was "consultation"? Shortly afterward, the Minister made his economic statement in which he announced some very massive cuts. I believe that in excess of SI.7 billion was reduced from the regional economic development envelope.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that, in view of the fact that there have been a great number of regions in Canada, including the Atlantic, Manitoba and parts of Quebec, that have been greatly affected by those cut-backs, which were made without any consultation whatsoever with the Canadian people, the provincial Premiers or Members of Parliament? One example of these cut-backs is the winter ferry services in Yarmouth, from Bar Harbour to Maine. That was cut unilaterally by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) without any consultation. Would the Hon. Member comment on such tactics by the Conservative Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his good memory and kind compliments about the past record.
Let me point out to the House that it was only approximately six or seven weeks ago that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) and I had the opportunity to consult with members of the Atlantic Economic Council who, during the course of those meetings, clearly pointed out that a continuation and strengthening of the IRDP was essential to the economic well-being of the Atlantic province. Through such programs, direct grants would go to individual businesses in those areas to give them the opportunity to start and develop new enterprises. However, we have seen that such action runs totally contrary to what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is proposing.
It would be a very sad day for regions like Atlantic Canada, northern Quebec, northern Ontario and the western regions on budget day next Thursday if the Minister has once again lost out and the IRDP has been eviscerated and cut back, reduced or transferred so that the federal Government has withdrawn even further from its ability or capacity to provide for an over-all economic plan to help those regions.
It is our hope that this debate will serve to let Members opposite take strong notice that if a further reduction of the IRDP is contemplated in the Budget and its replacement with some kind of tax incentive system, the poorer economic regions of Canada that are trying to improve themselves with federal assistance and co-operation will be sadly and sorely dismayed. It would only prove the case we have seen in the last nine months that the Government does not care.
Supply


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond briefly to the comments of the Hon. Member about the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is very interesting to look at his record when he was Minister of Transport and later Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. During his term, grain exports through Churchill went down over 30 per cent, from exports of a little over 600,000 tonnes in 1983 to a little over 400,000 tonnes when he was the Minister responsible.
It is very interesting to note that this happened at a time when Canada experienced record exports. If one wants to look at the record of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was responsible for Churchill, it is very dismal. Use of the port went down close to 30 per cent at the same time that we had record exports.
If we want to talk about commitments to the Port of Churchill and at that Member's record when he was the Minister responsible, it is a very dismal record and anything but the distinguished track record that was referred to by the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in a record of the many dumb statements made, the Minister's statement that exports dropped for three weeks when I was Minister of the Wheat Board is about the dumbest he has ever made. To try to blame the fallen exports on that administration is ludicrous.
He did not mention that when I was Minister I negotiated and signed a $93 million agreement which put Churchill back on the road for the first time. The Minister and his colleagues are totally undermining that achievement, and that is the Government's record. That is what is actually taking place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has expired.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in this debate, I think it is necessary to come back to the motion that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has put before the House. I noticed that he really did not touch on his own motion but seemed to use this as an opportunity to make statements that I suggest are perhaps among the most irresponsible that have ever been made in the House.
The reason I believe we should get back to the tone of the motion is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry referred to an article that he read in a newspaper that made it appear as though I were an interventionist. This alarmed him and he said that I was more of an interventionist than even our socialist friends to the Hon. Member's left.
He did not specifically say that I was more of an interventionist than the Trudeau Liberals or the Turner Liberals, but I think that was the implication.
The motion before the House reads:
That this House condemns the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and the Legislatures by failing to use industrial, decentralization, agricultural, transportation and equalization policies as well as its Crown Corporations to further economic development in all communities across Canada.
4706

May 14, 1985
Supply
What could be more interventionist than the Hon. Member's own motion? He claims that his motion is to condemn the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and the provincial legislatures by taking interventionist steps.
As this debate proceeds, I hope the Hon. Member will clarify, if it is possible for him to do so, the obvious conflict between his motion and the words that he uttered.
I find it rather amazing how representatives from the Official Opposition can so quickly forget the past. It is amazing how quickly they can get so worked up about the present. They totally forget that most of what they are rehashing is the result of the policies they had in place for over 14 years.
[DOT] (N40)
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member said that there has been no consultation. In fact, he looked at the ceiling in a quizzical way and asked, "Who is this Government talking to? Is it the provincial Premiers? No. Is it business? No. Is it labour? No". What the Hon. Member has totally ignored is that his Government was the one that instituted the concept of going into programs on a unilateral basis and of saying that the Government will not only not talk with the provinces but will move into their provincial areas of responsibility and unaliterally change things, knowing that it is not welcome.
As far as consultation is concerned, I need only remind Hon. Members that on January 21 in Ottawa, we had a meeting of all of the development Ministers in Canada. The development Ministers from the 10 provinces, the two Territories and the federal Government met at that time, and, much to everyone's pleasure, what took place at that meeting was an excellent dialogue, discourse and meeting of the minds. At that meeting, it was pointed out that that was the first time in Canadian history that there had ever been such a meeting of development Ministers from all levels of Government. How can the Hon. Member say that there is no consultation when the former Government, after 14 years, failed to have one such meeting and when we, within the first few months of governing, were able to organize successfully the initial meeting?
In fact, the meeting was so successful that we had a further meeting on March 25 in Quebec City. Again, that meeting was successful. We started to explore questions like how we can take the IRD Program to which the Hon. Member referred and make it more effectively delivered in conjunction with the provinces. We asked how we could make it more responsive to what presumably were the provincial and regional requirements. The provinces, the federal Government and the Territorial Governments are now working on those questions and hopefully will be able to come to an agreement that will be to the liking of all concerned.
Again, the meeting in Quebec City resulted in an agreement to meet in Vancouver on May 27. At that time, we hope that there will be a joint consultation paper produced. Not only will it be a federal paper but it will be a joint paper produced by the provinces, the Territories and the federal Government. Again, that will be another first for Canada. How can the
Hon. Member say that there is no consultation when the 10 provinces, the two Territories and the federal Government, for the first time, are working on such a consultation paper meant for joint publication?
The thing that I found so strange about the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was that he said that somehow or other we are not funding enough and that we are not doing it right. He totally ignores the fact that since we took office last September, the Government has signed no less than 19 separate agreements with various provincial Governments under the IRDA mechanism. These agreements provide federal funding of nearly $800 million to the provincial economies. Let me be a little more specific, though. Perhaps the Hon. Member cannot really relate to larger figures. Let me talk specifically. Perhaps he can understand smaller figures.
In Newfoundland, for example, on December 20, 1984, we signed a pulp and paper agreement for a total anticipated expenditure of $46.3 million, $38.5 million of which will come from the federal Government. On March 29, 1985, we signed a highways agreement for a total expenditure of $180 million, $112.5 million of which will come from the federal Treasury. In Prince Edward Island on October 26 of last year, a tourism agreement was signed for a total expenditure of $8.9 million. In Prince Edward Island, a marketing agreement was signed with expenditures totalling $7.5 million. In each of those instances, the federal Government is putting up approximately two-thirds of the money.
In Nova Scotia, a $50-million fisheries agreement was signed with the federal Government putting up $35 million. A $ 14-million tourism agreement was signed with the federal Government putting up $9.8 million. Can you really fault the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, for blushing right now? Can you really fault him for realizing how he misled this House? In New Brunswick, we signed a tourism agreement for $32 million, $22 million of which is coming from the federal Government. That was on November 30. A science and technology agreement was concluded on April 13, 1984, and we are continuing and expanding that agreement.
I could list the various subagreements we have signed with Quebec. Industrial development, tourism, communications, cultural infrastructures and forestry agreements have all been signed. The total of those agreements is $830 million and the federal portion of that is $415 million. If that sounds dramatic, one of the reasons for that is that Quebec was one of the provinces that was so severely impacted by the previous Government's unilateral actions that it refused to sign those kinds of agreements. It was not until this Government took over that we were able to sign an IRDA agreement with Quebec.
We not only succeeded in signing an IRDA agreement with the Province of Ontario on November 2 but we also concluded agreements for planning, forestry and tourism that total $196 million, the federal portion of which is $98 million. For the western provinces, I can cite province by province the various agreements we have signed. There are new initiatives in Saskatchewan for tourism and in Alberta for forestry. We signed
May 14, 1985

an agreement with British Columbia regarding the IRDA arrangements.
In short, I would like to emphasize that this Government is picking up after the sad record of the previous Government. It has acted effectively by getting regional development moving again. I would like to start itemizing the results.
Let us not forget what we have been doing. You will recall the Atlantic Accord, Mr. Speaker. For many years the previous Government could not reach an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were able to conclude that offshore agreement. What a breakthrough that was!


Mr. Lapierre:: We have yet to see the results.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Under the former Government, you would never have seen the results. I hope the Hon. Member realizes that.
Then there was the Western Accord. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that a Member from western Canada would criticize the present Government through this motion while totally ignoring the impact of the National Energy Program on the western provinces? That is what I mean when I say that this Hon. Member has a short memory. I despair for him. Surely he could remember the events of last year. Surely he knows of the unemployment that now exists in Alberta thanks to the former Government's National Energy Program. Surely he knows of the unemployment that now exists in British Columbia thanks to many of the former Government's policies affecting that area.
It is our job-and I can assure the House that we will accept the challenge-to turn some of those misdirected programs around and get Canada back on the road to prosperity.
I noted that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry liked to dwell on Manitoba. He mentioned the Port of Churchill. I can tell him that the Port of Churchill, as far as we are concerned, is a priority. Again, for the first time, we specifically asked Ministers from the Manitoba Government to join the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), myself and other representatives at the federal level to discuss all of the ramifications of the Port of Churchill. At that meeting, CN was represented as well as Canada Ports. I believe it was a worth-while meeting which led to a renewed priority which will be given to the Port of Churchill and an intensive examination of its potential.
I would also like to say that in our annual meeting, under the ERDA arrangement with the Government of Manitoba, we succeeded in reaching various agreements, which I believe will prove to be very beneficial for that province in the coming months and years.
I remind the Hon. Member that this Government arranged for equalization payments to Manitoba to be raised by $50
Supply
million from the figure which was projected in February. I can only say that the equalization payment-and I am sure other Members who belong to the same Party as the present Government in Manitoba must have heard it-was a very welcome adjustment for that province.
I have referred to the successful negotiations with the Manitoba Ministers. If I may, I would like to speak about specifics. The Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) and his provincial counterpart have signed a $30 million Manitoba tourism development agreement. At the meeting on the Nelson River, we agreed with Manitoba that there would be a subsidiary agreement for industrial development. We believe that that agreement will be signed by the end of June. Further, we agreed to implement a memorandum of understanding for hydroelectric development project co-ordination. We hope to be able to sign that memorandum this month. On May 10, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) signed a memorandum of understanding on science and technology with his provincial counterpart. We are also investigating the feasibility of a trade development organization that will concentrate on the Prairies, which will likely have its main base in Winnipeg. When we met with our Manitoba counterparts, we agreed, in consultation with federal and provincial Health Ministers, to explore joint initiatives in health care products and services.
I could go on to cite the various things which we are doing of an IRDP nature in Manitoba. I can only say that we are encouraged by the agreements which we have been able to achieve to date. Second, we are encouraged by the fact that the private sector is responding.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry referred to Crown corporations. I believe he will find that the Crown corporations which we inherited are now running more effectively and have a greater backlog of orders-be it de Havilland or Canadair-than they have had for many years. In the case of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, it has had a profitable year for the first time in its history. I do not only regard that as good regional development for the sake of the regions concerned, but good economic development for Canada.
The target of this Government is to bring down the 11 per cent or 12 per cent unemployment level which the previous Government left. The previous Government took the country from a rate of unemployment which was approximately 4 per cent when it first took power to what it is today. This Government's target is to bring down the unemployment level to something which approaches full employment in the country. Anything which the Government does of an economic development nature is designed to relieve the unemployment tragedies which exist in Canada at regional and provincial levels.
As far as this Government is concerned, the course is clear. The Budget will outline some of the new initiatives which we intend to take. Unlike the Official Opposition and its socialist allies, this Government has confidence in the country. This Government believes that there is room for Canadian and

May 14, 1985
Supply
non-Canadian investment which will help to harness the potential which exists in Canada. We believe that investment will begin to create the jobs which were not created as a result of previous policies. In short, this Government will once again get the real economic growth in the country, both on a regional and a national level, up to the potential which can be ours. It can be ours if, once again, we return confidence to Canada and turn away from the debilitating attitudes and thrusts of the previous Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister several questions about the situation in British Columbia. He referred to agreements which have been reached with other provinces, but there are still no dollar figures forthcoming for British Columbia. British Columbia is still waiting for money to flow under the forestry agreement. It is becoming crucial.
Last Friday, when the unemployment statistics were released, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) bragged that the Government had created some 201,000 jobs across Canada. If British Columbia had received its fair share of those jobs, it should have received 20,000 additional jobs. However, in April, unemployment went up by 1,000 jobs. British Columbia has 23,000 fewer people working today than when the Conservative Government took office. The unemployment rate in September was 14.1 per cent and today it is 15.4 per cent. In September, 1,226,000 British Columbians were employed. Today, 1,203,000 British Columbians are employed. That represents a loss of 23,000 jobs. Can the Minister tell us when the dollars will start flowing to British Columbia? Why have the dollar figures not been reached? Is it because this Government is not prepared to give British Columbia a proportionate share compared to what Quebec has received? Or is it because this Government does not have confidence in the Government of British Columbia and in the way it wants to spend the money?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who comes from British Columbia, has the answer ready at hand. I suggest that he talk with his friends in Victoria to find out why they are not willing to accept the figures which we offered them. Those figures were on a comparable basis to what other provinces accepted with respect to ERDA funding. Perhaps he could tell us what the Government in Victoria feels at the present time. Certainly, we are willing to sign and start the funds flowing.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister's comments only reinforce the case we are making that this Government has a wonderful inclination for self-delusion. He ended up his grand peroration by talking about the performance of the Crown corporations based upon the last annual report of companies like Canadair, de Havilland and Devco. Those corporations, of course, are all reporting for the year 1984 when the Liberal Government was their proprietor and manager for nine months of that year.
What we are saying is that in the coming Budget the Government will not be able to hide under those programs any longer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who does your research?


Lloyd Axworthy: The research is pretty obvious as I read the reports. I suggest you do the same.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Take a look at the dates on them.


Lloyd Axworthy: I do want to raise some interesting questions concerning Manitoba. The Minister tells us what wonderful things he is doing there. I would like him first to explain why it is that when our Party left the Government, Manitoba had the second highest rate of growth of any province in Canada and now it has the lowest rate of growth as of the latest figures of this year? Has that been the result of all the grand initiatives taken by this new Government? It has turned around a province which had momentum and development.
I would like the Minister to comment also on a statement made by one of his own officials, a member of his own Department in that province. The industry Minister of the provincial Government, Mr. Kostyra, publicly complained that requests for a number of major industrial grants had been turned down by the Minister's Department with respect to companies such as Canada Packers and Melrose Foods. He had a whole list of companies which would have provided a number of jobs and development which had all been turned down by the federal Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. I quote from The Winnipeg Free Press of May 6, 1985, as follows:
A spokesmen for the federal Department said it would be impossible to determine whether more applications are being accepted now compared to two years ago because the program has been changed-
That's true.
He noted the federal Government reduced the national budget of the industry and regional development program by $200 million last November. He also said changes to the program have made it much more difficult to obtain funding.
That is a clear indication that one region, which had a very high rate of growth and was beginning to develop the confidence about which the Minister talks, now has the lowest rate of growth in the country and does not have that confidence any more. And one of the key reasons for this has been the withdrawal and reduction of federal investments in that province.
I would like the Minister to explain the words of his own official, who clearly put the finger on the problem, which was the reduction of the budget for IRDP, and the program changes, which mean that a city like Winnipeg is eliminated from any tier one financing. I would particularly like to know if he can now guarantee, or give us assurances, that come the Budget next week, there will be no further cuts in IRD programs and no further cuts in regional development incentives for the province so that while the present level of funding is inadequate and is obviously having a drastically negative effect, the federal Government will not simply throw the province into a state of total disarray by further cuts and reductions?
May 14, 1985


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we really have to feel sorry for this fellow. In spite of the fact that the Treasury makes hundreds of thousands of dollars available to help the Hon. Member with researchers, he relies on a news story out of a 25-cent newspaper. He refers to a turn-down of Canada Packers and implies that somehow or other we did that. He totally ignores the fact that it was the former Government-


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh no, it wasn't.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry as the western Cabinet Minister who turned down Canada Packers. We have indicated that if the company wants to reapply, we will look at it. We will deal with it fairly and judiciously. But do let him not start blaming some mythical $200 million figure as being the problem for the turn-down of Canada Packers. It was the former Government itself which turned it down.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it wasn't.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As far as the Melrose Food Company is concerned, again, poor fellow, it is a subsidiary of the major international conglomerate known as Nabisco. We offered it $300,000, but we said we thought, in view of the fact that it was a very profitable company, that perhaps it would care to repay the money. That is the only difference. It has indicated it would like an outright grant.


Mr. Darling:: Who wouldn't?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Notwithstanding the fact that it is a multinational-and at other times the Hon. Member is very critical of these multi-nationals, he has a little bit of hate for them-in this instance he says, "Give it the money. How dare you ask that it should ever repay the $300,000?" That's what the Hon. Member is talking about. And on the strength of the article out of that 25-cent newspaper, he feels he has something to stand up and expound on in this House. It is pitiful, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of the men and women of Quebec. In his comments, the Minister mentioned that he was happy with the agreement signed with the province of Quebec. In that case, I would like to ask the Minister why the first thing his Government did was to cut $770 million from the amount to be transferred to Quebec this year. They are bragging about signing a billion-dollar agreement, but the money is to be spent over a period of Five years.
As far as equalization is concerned, Mr. Speaker, not the Liberals but the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Duhaime, has been saying that he disagrees with the decisions made by the Progressive Conservative Government... Mr. Speaker, unemployment figures may have gone down in Quebec, but this morning, we heard that the problem is not unemployment but 700,000 people who are drawing welfare benefits. That is what your policies have brought us!
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Hon. Member has referred to certain funding with respect to the Province of Quebec which he says we have scrapped. I would like him to document that. I know of no funding which has been scrapped. In fact, we have grandfathered the various programs which had been identified for Quebec, and clearly the agreement which we have with Quebec not only says that whatever funding was directed toward Quebec would stay in place, but that there would be new supplemental funding. The new funding of $415 million in total, to which I referred, includes an industrial development agreement for $175 million; tourism, $50 million; communications, $20 million; cultural infrastructures, $20 million, and forestry, $130 million. That is just the federal share. The total agreement comes to $830 million because those agreements are all on a fifty-fifty basis. In short, the Province of Quebec received an add-on in addition to whatever had been earmarked for it previously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments is now completed. Resuming debate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have to start out by congratulating my hon. friend in the Liberal Party for moving this motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What else is new?


Steven W. Langdon: He has, I think, made the heroic discovery that in fact there are, on the part of this Government, industrial policies. I have watched and looked carefully since September 4 and I have not been able to detect any policies or any direction, so I have to say that it is heroic and admirable that my hon. colleague has been able to identify such a thing. It is a particular pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to speak this morning on the aftermath of yet another vote of judgment on the policy direction of the Conservative federal Government. I refer, of course, to Yukon and to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has received his welcome reward for the long months of work he has contributed.
I must start out by telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has been referred to this morning as an "enigma". I frankly think that one of the most difficult challenges in this House of Commons is to pinpoint exactly what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is trying to do. I spent this morning, Mr. Speaker, jogging, as I find occasionally I have to do in order to cope with the frustration of trying to understand the direction of the Minister. It came to me, finally, as I jogged across the lawns of the Governor General's house this morning, that in fact we are talking not about an enigma, but about an octopus, the octopus of the 1980s, the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. His arms stretch out in all directions. Everything from IRDP to Devco to IRDA agreements, his arms are everywhere. Yet there is a kind of writhing quality about those arms, which betrays the lack of direction and strategy. There is also, characteristic of the octopus, a camouflage of ink spewed in all directions, trying to obscure, hide

May 14, 1985
Supply
and cover up what is taking place. One might think that somewhere among all this writhing of arms and spewing of ink, the ink coming from his interviews with the press, there is an agenda, a direction, because that is what the Minister tries to suggest in the interviews he gives.
Frankly, he has got a remarkably good press. The press has suggested that somewhere below all of this ad hoc activity there is a strategy. I have looked at the latest effort to set out that strategy in The Financial Post article which has been referred to in this debate, and I must tell you that there are some very interesting ideas in that article. Many of them, things such as industrial agreements, long-term government-company arrangements, are things we as a Party wrote about in 1978 in talking about an industrial strategy for this country. So it is most gratifying to see the Minister finally, eight years later, starting to speak in those terms. But I do not believe that that is the reality. As I look at the record, 1 do not believe that it shows the sense of direction the Minister claims is there.
It is now about eight months since this Government was elected. The Minister has the longest memory of those in this House and he delights in getting up and attacking the previous regime. But that starts to ring hollow after a while. While the Government might have had excuses after two months, four months or, stretching it, even after six months, after eight months you cannot continue to blame the previous Government for the lack of an industrial policy direction in this country. That Minister has to carry the responsibility. He has had the time to do more than give interviews to The Financial Post. He has had the time to set out a direction and follow that direction in the activities of his Ministry, but, frankly, he has not done so.
I want to take you, Mr. Speaker, through some of those key cases which demonstrate just how inadequately, how shortsightedly, how foolishly that Minister has performed in the eight months he has been in office. Let me illustrate first that industry which is very important not just to my constituency but to the whole manufacturing industry in this country, that is, the automobile industry. In The Financial Post the Minister talks about encouraging industry-government agreements, setting out a plan for that industry. But he has had a task force report on that industry sitting on his desk from day one. It shows him a direction which has been agreed on, not just by the companies in that industry but by the trade unions as well, a direction which would put into effect Canadian content requirements in order to produce jobs here. Yet there has been absolutely no action on that report. Indeed, it has been worse than that. With respect to the renewal of quota arrangements with Japan, the Minister has led us in a song and dance. He promised that he would have some kind of firm signal on Japanese auto quotas by mid-May, yet there is nothing. So the industry limps along with a sense of uncertainty about the future. Yet the Minister has the temerity, the self-righteousness, to speak to The Financial Post about his commitment to industry-government agreements. He has refused to respond positively to the danger signs which exist in that industry.
These danger signs have been evidenced in the decision by Chrysler Corporation to put major parts production in South Korea. I have pressed the Minister to raise with Chrysler Corporation the fact that if it has the financial resources to do that, it should also have the financial resources to reopen the engine plant in Windsor. It committed itself to doing so when it asked for $200 million worth of loan guarantees from the Canadian Government. It got that commitment, which in turn got it the $1.5 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S. Government, yet the Minister will not press Chrysler to get those extra jobs. It seems to me that this Minister is not living up to the challenges which face him.
Another challenge, and frankly one that I expected this Minister and this Government to take most seriously, is that of showing the Canadian people that the money we spend to help the private sector companies is in fact leading to jobs. On March 20 I wrote to the Minister about a classic case involving $275 million given to Bell Helicopter by the previous Government supposedly to result in over 3,000 jobs in Quebec. I suggested in the letter that serious questions had come up with reference to that particular project, and I can tell Hon. Members that I am now in possession of material which makes the importance of those questions even clearer. We have received copies of a secret Science Council report which studied that project. The Science Council in preparing its report had access to the Cabinet memorandum that went to the previous Liberal Cabinet describing this project. Within that Cabinet memorandum there was a commitment that the Bell Helicopter proposal would create the largest number of jobs, an average of about 2,773 over the life of the project. That Cabinet document indicates that Bell Helicopter agreed to place work of equivalent quality and value in Canada in the event that its job targets were not met. That Cabinet memorandum said as well that Bell Helicopter is seeking 67 per cent of the total cost of $409 million for this project.
Each of those statements made in that Cabinet memorandum has clearly emerged as being false. One can only draw the conclusion that that Cabinet memorandum conveyed information to the Government which, intentionally or unintentionally, was grossly inaccurate. The Government was misled with respect to the number of jobs to be generated by this project. It has become clear that only 600 jobs are to be generated by the project.
Second, Bell Helicopter has not been prepared to put extra production of other kinds into this country, despite its failure to produce the original number of jobs suggested, and despite the fact that it made a commitment, according to that Cabinet document. Finally, it has become clear that there was an attempt, after this Cabinet memorandum was presented, to obscure and change the proportion of the financial contribution from this private company to Bell Helicopter.
In this case all sorts of misinformation was put before Cabinet and a decision was made on that basis. It seems to me that the Minister has a responsibility in such a case to have a
May 14, 1985

public inquiry to give Canadians across the country a sense of commitment from Bell Helicopter in the context of this project. The Minister has not been prepared even to answer the latter, let alone to launch a public inquiry, which is crucial to give the people of the country the sense that their money is being well spent.
I would like to talk about the high-tech sector and the fact that the Government clearly does not have a strategy for that most important part of our economy which will give us the jobs that we need in the future. Instead, to my utter amazement, members of the Government stood up in the House yesterday and applauded the takeover of a prominent, viable, dynamic Canadian firm by a British state-controlled corporation which has existed for years as a regulated monopoly. I could not believe the sense of irony and delicious contradiction that the Minister must have recognized he was engaged in as he stood on the floor of the House. He was an opponent of Canadian public enterprise seeking to reduce the public sector in this country. He applauded the fact that a state-controlled corporation from Britain will have control in the future of Mitel Corporation, one of the most important high technology Canadian firms. It is incomprehensible to me, Mr. Speaker, that the back-benchers who are present today would permit the Minister to carry forward such a lack of strategy and planning as representative of the Conservative Party of Canada.
I will conclude by saying that the world according to this Minister is a world in which foreign investment and privatization will somehow save us. It is a world in which Government abdicates responsibility. It abdicates responsibility to provinces, to private oil companies, to foreign investors, and to trade with the United States. There is a challenge for the country to reduce the tragic double digit unemployment which we face in this country.
In our report, Canadian Unlimited, we have suggested a direction in which that challenge can be met. We want to give our communities the power to shape the future for themselves. We want to put responsibility where it belongs, on the Government front benches in the House of Commons. We want to offer leadership instead of obscurity, direction instead of an ad hoc sense of flailing away with octopus arms in every direction.
The challenge is there, Mr. Speaker, but it is not being met. Eight months after the election of the Government it should be met. The Minister can no longer rely on interviews with The Financial Post to attempt to mislead us into believing that he has a strategy for the industrial development of the country. Instead of the octopus of the 1980s we look for direction and leadership. We challenge the Government to provide that for us in the future.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in some of the comments made by my colleague. He spoke of the need for a new direction. Next week there will be a Budget presented. Would my colleague expand on some of his ideas and indicate the direction in which he feels it is necessary to move and what Budget initiatives would help us to move in that direction?
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in Canada Unlimited we have set out what we suggest is a counter-Budget. This approach does two things. In macro-economic terms it shows very clearly that without a significant increase in the deficit it is possible to have a much more expansionary fiscal policy which would give us a tremendous increase in jobs and a significant decrease in the unemployment rate. It suggests that rather than giving tax breaks and grants to large corporations and companies, we should put that direction on its head and give the tax breaks to middle and lower income people who will spend that money and stimulate consumer demand within the country. We also suggest that the grants, which should no longer be directed to large scale corporations, be redirected to the communities of the country, to young people, and to women's groups. They should be redirected to groups that have shown dynamism and sense of exciting new ideas that would put millions of creative possibilities into force at the local level.
We have suggested that this kind of decentralized community-based support, which was the policy thrust of our successful colleagues in the Yukon Territory during their campaign that just concluded, is a thrust that meets the goals of Canadians today. They do not want to see Governments controlling and running their lives. They do not want big businesses on Bay Street and St. James Street to take all the decisions that shape their future. They want community self-direction.
The Budget proposals that we have set out in a responsible, straightforward and clear way offer that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on an Opposition motion that is specifically concerned with the need to fight regional disparity and the fact that we think the present Government is totally insensitive to this phenomenon, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has been a matter of concern for politicians since Confederation. Hon. Members must realize that regional disparities, whether they concern the economy, employment or the search for equal opportunities, are as old as this country.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have become very aware of regional disparities, especially since the beginning of the Second Word War. At that time, regional disparities became very obvious. Ontario had become the industrial heartland of Canada, while other regions depended strictly on their natural resources, and we can say that since that time, the federal and provincial governments have been concerned about regional economic development.
Mr. Speaker, we know that at that time, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, especially, were lagging behind on employment, income and all other economic indicators. Unfor-

May 14, 1985
Supply
tunately, in spite of all the efforts focussed on this situation by successive administrations, the situation continues to exist in Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, you probably will not remember, but in 1937, the Rowell-Sirois Commission started its inquiry into regional disparity and the Canadian economic union, and at that time, recommendations started being made for providing equal opportunities for all Canadians. The House will also recall that 1957 marked the begnning of equalization payments as we know them today. Also in 1957, the Borden Commission examined the situation of the Maritime provinces and recommended better economic co-ordination in order to help this part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the real thrust for regional economic development was given in 1969, when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established, and I think everyone will remember how this department, with its growing awareness of our various regional situations, has helped the Canadian Government to become an active partner in regional development and to become more sensitive to regional needs including the need to attract more investment to certain less advantaged areas and thus create jobs. The Department's specific terms of reference at the time were to make sure that all federal departments were fully aware of regional aspirations, that regional interests were considered in Cabinet discussions, and that Government policies were tailored to the various regional realities.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Department was also responsible for promoting regional economic development policies and coordinating the activities of other departments. Finally, I think it had quite an impact on decisions made by the many Cabinet committees, in the sense that, more often than not, a decision serving national interests did have a negative impact in certain regions which thus were left to play second fiddle to the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House acknowledged as formally as possible the urgency of regional economic development when, in 1981, both major parties unanimously adopted the Canadian Constitution Bill. I am sure we all remember Section 36:
36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, 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. (2) 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.
Mr. Speaker, you were a Member of this House when the Bill was adopted, and we all endorse those principles. Since the new Government took office, although the Constitution may
be clear, definite and specific, in practice however, we have every reason to worry.
There has been a sharp increase in the number of 1RDP applications turned down since September. Private promoters came to see me with regional economic development case files which were once deemed quite acceptable but which are now rejected for all kinds of considerations.
Of course, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) did not further the cause when he agreed to a $200 million Industrial and Regional Development Program cut-back. I can readily see why applications are refused in ever increasing numbers. That is what has me worried because more and more businessmen and businesswomen come to see us and say: What can we expect! We deal with the federal Government, but DRIE is no longer interested in promoting economic development in the Eastern Townships, DRIE could not care less about job creation in other regions of Quebec. I would suggest that the Minister responsible for the Department considers international trade a more challenging venture. Indeed, he is walking all over his colleague in External Affairs and has downgraded the role of the Minister for International Trade. We all know that. Mr. Speaker, you should go to External Affairs and ask who is the boss. If you see trade commissioners abroad, just ask them who looks after international and trade policies. Most will say it is the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He is not satisfied with his small kingdom, he wants more. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you probably remember that he was External Affairs critic when in Opposition, and it does look like he still harbours ambitions in that respect even if the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) got the job. With that in mind, I think it is unfortunate that the Minister-I would describe him as the stand-in Minister of External Affairs, or the self-appointed Minister for International Trade-does not look after his own bailiwick, which is regional economic development. To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, he is so busy minding other peoples' business that he has precious little time left for his own.
The Minister has made a name for himself, Mr. Speaker. For instance, Mirabel residents, including town councillor Hubert Meilleur, have said that Ottawa's decision to deny funds for upgrading the city's infrastructures is unfair.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Port-Cartier on the North Shore are still waiting for the Minister to stop navel-gazing and make decisions about the future of ITT Rayonier. I know the people in the Gaspe region. Go to Newport and see what they think of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
Mr. Speaker, they all know that the Minister did not dare meet with them, that he dispatched his official interpreter- the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette)- to mend his fences. Mr. Speaker, nothing has been settled in
May 14, 1985

that case. Year in and year out, their party denounced makeshift job creation projects, but now we know the Newport plant will stay closed, which is why the Minister of State (Small Businesses) went over there to promote Canada Works projects. That is exactly what they beefed about for years on end. All they want to do now with funds allocated to the Gaspe region is to make sure that those people will have their ten weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. But their plant will stay closed.
Mr. Speaker, I could talk about a lot of people. The Minister had been sitting on the Petromont file since September 4, but the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) twisted his arm until he finally agreed to give $15 million to rescue Petromont. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a temporary measure until the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion can come up with what he called a long term solution. It was one way to buy time, rather expensively at $15 million, but he had to keep everybody at bay until March 31. Well, Mr. Speaker, what has the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion been doing since then? Did you hear him announce his long term solution for Quebec's petrochemical industry? Everything was supposed to be settled after March 31. No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion would much rather dabble in international trade than settle the Petromont issue.
Talking about major regional economic projects, Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the French coal plant? It is another project that has been shelved because this Government does not want to make decisions. We are talking about a $500 million plant, yet the Minister and the Government keep putting off the construction of this plant so vital to the Becancour region.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister's pitiful performance in the Melchers case is well known. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) was also against temporary job creation programs-band-aids on festering wounds, he said-but what did they offer to Melchers workers? More of the same, Canada Works! Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people of Berthierville would not appreciate seeing the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) laugh at their serious problems. The people of Berthierville are entitled to steady and well-paid jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I will not mention the Wabasso fiasco, another horror story. The first thing I heard about when I got up this morning was that Quebec had another problem-550 more jobs lost in Montreal. Stelco will be meeting the unions today and tomorrow to say goodbye. It is as simple as that. Five hundred and fifty people out of a job, who will probably get a severance bonus that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will deduct from their unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, this is appalling. This is a government that claims it is very sensitive to regional realities and to the problems of the
Supply
little man. Mr. Speaker, what is the Government going to offer the workers at Stelco?
Mr. Speaker, this Government is terribly confused, and I am referring to the soft sectors of our industry. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion told people in the textile and clothing industry that they were going to be guaranteed a share of the Canadian market. The Minister for International Trade goes abroad and says that the Government is in favour of free trade. Could these two Ministers perhaps get their act together, Mr. Speaker? One is in favour of global quotas, and one is for a totally open market, and then our national "kid kodak", the Prime Minister, went to Bonn and said: We are going to set an example for dealing with Third World countries, and we are going to open our borders to their textiles and clothing. Mr. Speaker, people who make a living in this industry expect some kind of policy from this Government, and that is the kind of concern that exists throughout Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I could give you some examples, but I would like to summarize the position taken by the famous Ministers from Quebec. Their colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, was speaking on their behalf when he said that the Minister wanted to make it clear that the 10 Conservative Ministers from Quebec were not working for the benefit of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of statement we get from the Minister of State for Small Businesses, who said that for him, Quebec's interests were not a priority. I realize he has a national role, but he was not elected nationally, Mr. Speaker, and he should at least have the decency to acknowledge the concerns of the people who elected him, and his Cabinet colleagues should also make sure that Quebec's concerns get special attention.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the fact that the Minister of State for Transport is in the House, and I am sure he is concerned about economic spinoffs for Quebec-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


Claudy Mailly: The Hon. Member referred to the presence of specific Members in the House, and I would also like to say that he is abusing his privilege, because the relevance of his comments is starting to break down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that this is a point of order. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would say that ever since the Hon. Member set foot in the House, ever since September 4, she has done nothing but utter insignificant remarks and interrupt Hon. Members. If she has nothing constructive to say, let her shut up, Mr. Speaker.

May 14, 1985
Supply
What I want to say is that the Minister of State for Transport, whose presence I acknowledge in the House-and I do not think you will object, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister is an important Member of this Cabinet-I want to tell him that I wish he would look into the Canadian North Warning System. On March 23 of this year, Les Affaires reported that the Federal Government was refusing to make any commitments or even to examine potential regional spinoffs from the contract to upgrade our Canadian North Warning System, and I am asking the Minister to ensure that Quebec gets its fair share of this defence contract, as has been the case in all major contracts awarded by the Canadian Government, Mr. Speaker. I think we have a whole list of other issues. I could comment on the problems at Air Canada, Canadian National, VIA Rail, Canadair, Teleglobe Canada, the Corporation of the Port of Montreal, the National Film Board, Katimavik, the C.B.C., the Aviation Safety Board, all of which have suffered at the hands of the new Government. Mr. Speaker, regional economic development means ensuring that the interests of Quebec are properly safeguarded. I could talk about the airport at Rouyn, and I know the Minister of State for Transport is very much aware of that airport because he has received a request from the Rouyn-Noranda Chamber of Commerce, and I am sure he will give them a positive answer, but speaking of transport, and of discrimination, there is one issue a Member from Quebec dared to raise, and which he promised to look into, during his election campaign, and that is the toll on the Champlain Bridge. And I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will honour whatever commitments were made by its own Members. Every week I fall victim to that discrimination of a special tax on South Shore residents, and I am convinced the Hon. Member who made that distinct promise will be able to fulfill it, with the assistance of his colleagues from the Quebec caucus.
But speaking of the Quebec caucus, Mr. Speaker, since you may think I am not an impartial observer I am going to quote from an editorial written by Mr. Francois Roberge in the newspaper Finance, who had this to say: "I do not know whether Quebec is now gaining anything through the good will of the Mulroney Government, but certainly it is losing its shirt on many issues because of the weakness of the Quebec caucus".
Mr. Speaker, that was not written by a Liberal. In that respect, I am convinced that my colleagues opposite will overcome their timidity. They will ask themselves questions. How was it that a matter like the Western Bank was solved within a minute, while matters relating to Quebec have been dragging along since the election? And all of them have such problems in their respective constituencies.


An Hon. Member:: Which one?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Which one? Had we not been here, Mr. Speaker, to raise the example of the Domtar issue, they would
have been in for it. That is the kind of defenders we have for Quebec. The Official Opposition has to work double time, twelve or eighteen hours a day keeping an eye on them, because they do not look after their own interests. Which one? There is the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), to whom I want to pay tribute because he is not afraid to speak his mind. There is also of course the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), but each court has its jesters, Mr. Speaker.
What I mean is if we are to address other matters, let they be farm matters. We know that in Quebec the pork industry is now in serious trouble, for their American friends have put a surtax on them. How can Government Members justify their not reacting violently to a surtax that will put that industry in absolute shambles? I am keeping an eye on them, to see what kind of position they will be taking with respect to the Crows' Nest rates. I am keeping an eye on them in connection with the Canadian Dairy Commission. How is it that not one of them has opposed the $32 million cuts? Where are you, for heaven's sake? This is why, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Members in this party are worried because of those 58 silent MP's and we are anxious to see them take some self-assurance and defend Quebec's interests in this Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we get into questions and comments, I want to make sure that Members know that when they are debating, they are not to mention the absence of specific Members in the Chamber. I should read the "blues", but I did not hear the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) indicate a particular Member in the House. If he did, he was out of order.
We will now go to questions and comments.


Mr. Bouchard:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we do not have as much time as the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), but in any case, we would not want to try the patience of the House which was especially tested by the intervention of my Hon. friend.
We rediscovered a picture with which the Canadian people have been familiar for many years, that of the nightmare years preceding the coming into power of this Government, and I simply want to remind the Hon. Member for Shefford about the need for the cut-backs which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), along with his other colleagues, reluctantly agreed to apply to a number of worthwhile programs, and we concede to the Hon. Member that some initiatives of Quebec businesses are still as valid as under the previous Government, but unfortunately, the money is no longer there. The funds are no longer there. Of course, it is always the same, but contrary to the previous Government, we
May 14, 1985

do not claim to be miracle-workers. We cannot make money and we use only what is available.
The definite project called Petromont was not started under this Government. In my opinion, the previous Government cannot consider its record on this matter as a success.
As far as transportation matters, with which I am somewhat more familiar, are concerned, I believe that Quebecers appreciate our realistic approach to those questions, whether we are dealing with Air Canada or Via Rail, where we shall very soon be in a position to restore a number of passenger services, and the Hon. Member is from a region which will benefit from this decision. We are trying to deal with the airports very fairly. As for secondary matters such as tolls, we consider that this special tax, as you call it yourself, was not imposed by our Government and that it would be totally unrealistic to abolish them in the present economic situation. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion treats all matters related to Quebec with a great deal of fairness and honesty. I believe that he does so under extremely difficult economic conditions which we inherited without asking for them, but we shall have the courage to face them, and I am convinced that in the future the policies we implement will improve the situation of Quebec businesses at least as well as those of the previous Government. We are convinced that they will actually be much more successful.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) for his comments, but I wish also to ask him to please remove his pink-coloured glasses.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I am here to call my hon. colleagues' attention to the areas which are hurting. And the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has done enough to brag about.
I wish especially to warn him that, as he is applauding the commendable efforts of his colleague, he should be aware that a proposed automobile plant had been planned in Canada since September 4. And can you guess where that plant ended up? In the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion's own riding, which is certainly not the poorest in Canada. The point I want to convey to my hon. colleagues is that things are not all white or all black. They are certainly aware that in politics, there are a great many grey areas. I want the Minister to be vigilant and to make sure that Quebec's interests are protected. Also, I am not a veteran in politics, but as one who has been in this House for a number of years, I can tell him that his enemies are not sitting across the aisle from him. We are his opponents. His true enemies are sitting alongside him.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very brief comment.
The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) came in my constituency during the 1984 election campaign to try and
help my opponent, the former Liberal Member, Mr. Cousi-neau, who misused a majority of 38,000 votes on his closest opponent.
The issues that were outstanding are now being solved one after the other. There is the customs clearance issue in which the previous member had taken no interest. A teledetection sector, a high technology field, will be set up in Gatineau, an area which the Liberal government ignored during decades.
An agreement between Ottawa and Quebec has already allowed to develop the tourist industry in the Gatineau riding where unemployment varies between 30 and 40 per cent, a situation about which the previous member had done nothing. Why? As soon as Mr. Cousineau had some interesting plans and contractors came to see him, they were swiped by his colleague Mr. Fox who referred to plants set up in other constituencies. All this shows that the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is a good speaker, but he should remember that politics require some sense of responsibility as well as the showmanship he obviously has.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.

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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada has approved aerial spraying of Delta Methrin, a pesticide, despite claims by officials in Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans that the chemical threatens fish and waterfowl. Delta Methrin has been approved for aerial spraying of grain and potato crops until December 31. The spraying will be allowed only once on each crop this year, and must occur at least 100 metres from water bodies that might be damaged by the pesticide.
The concept of a buffer zone is almost impossible to enforce in eastern Canada and in the northern Prairies. The large amount of surface water and numerous sloughs make it impossible to avoid spraying without affecting water bodies.

May 14, 1985
Budget cuts announced last November by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) stopped a Canadian Wildlife Service study of whether or not aerial spraying of Delta Methrin would endanger millions of waterfowl that start life on prairie sloughs. A partially completed National Research Council review of the chemical was also scrapped. When will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announce that which he has promised several times, the pest management advisory board, so that he may listen to advice on health and environmental consequences from officials of other Departments?



FORESTRY


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, was named Forestry Capital of Canada for 1985-86. The honour draws to the attention of the nation Prince Albert's long dependency on forestry and its present contribution to the industry.
Along with other Prince Albertans, I had the honour of welcoming the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) to Prince Albert. We thanked the Minister for his visit and called upon him to impress upon his colleagues the importance of forestry in our economy, and to recognize that we are dangerously close to a crisis because of government neglect of our forests.
The federal Government spends less than 20 per cent of the funds it receives from the industry on replenishment of the forests and on research into the care of the forests. Our forests are suffering from acid rain, lack of replanting, and lack of intensive silviculture. We are devastating our own future by our neglect of the forests.
Members of the New Democratic Party call upon the Government to pass a national Forestry Act which would establish a legal base for forestry care and an instrument for making sure that our children, and our children's children, will have use of this wonderful resource with which we in Canada are blessed.



HOMEMAKERS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY

Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, in the area of social equality between men and women, this Government is fully aware of the problems involved and there is no doubt that concrete actions have been taken and certainly will be pursued further.
As we must point out for the record, Mr. Speaker, it would be an error to underestimate any longer the role of the person
in charge of domestic tasks and to ignore her economic contribution, for the only reason that this is, no "employment" as traditionally defined. Homemakers who amde legitimate choices justified by their relationship with their spouses should not be penalized economically because most women now make choices that are different.
Mr. Speaker, more and more men share the following vision, and I quote:
Equality of women now and in the future is basically the opportunity to chose and the assurance that they are not less privileged than men because of their choice, and they receive for their contribution the same benefits as men, quite apart from the context of "chosen employment".



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as prairie farmers know, recent amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act introduced by the Government brought about a record interim payment this spring. This $450-million payout was a welcome injection of capital into the western economy, and is allowing thousands of western producers to put seeds into the ground this season.
Looking now to the future, many producers know that the program must undergo further changes if it is to play a more effective role in stabilizing prairie grain farm incomes. I have noted, as have many producers, that the program is not always as sensitive as it might be to regional crop differences. For example, some producers who had bumper crops last season collected the same interim payment this year as did producers who had very poor crops. Yet in other years payouts were not triggered even though it was clear that prairie grain farm incomes in specific regions were in need of a stabilizing influence.
The program has been around for 10 years, and I believe a review at this time could be very healthy. I commend the Minister responsible for recognizing past deficiencies in the program, and for rectifying them. I now call upon the same Minister to continue the process of updating the Act so that the program becomes more relevant to the producers it serves.



HELSINKI ACCORDS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975, 35 nations solemnly signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Since that time regular meetings have been hald to review the implementation of the Accords, by the signatory states. At the Madrid conference the former Liberal Govern-
May 14, 1985

ment invited experts on human rights matters to meet in Ottawa this year.
Many non-governmental organizations have been actively preparing for this conference. These organizations have developed and possess valuable expertise which could be of considerable benefit to the Canadian policymakers. However, the present Government, which said it places great stock in the consultative process, has done very little to ensure meaningful participation by the various NGOs in the formulation of the Canadian delegation's position. The Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Standing Committee on External Affairs held one meeting on eastern Europe, a meeting that was hastily organized and poorly publicized, to receive briefs from the various NGOs. That is hardly adequate preparation for a conference as important as this one.
The promotion of human rights warrants a process through which the concerns of all Canadians would truly be represented. Indeed, this consultative process also requires a permanent forum to monitor and publicize compliance with the human rights provisions of the Final Act. The former Liberal Government was fervently committed to the protection of human rights, not just in Canada but all over the world. The present Government would do well to emulate the distinguished Liberal record.



NATIONAL HERITAGE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, heritage groups throughout the country are looking to the federal Budget, which is to be announced on May 23, for some indication that the preservation of our past in the form of the protection of the buildings and communities of early Canada will be assisted by tax changes, thus making it possible to rehabilitate these buildings and communities.
The city of Winnipeg, the city in which I grew up, contains a downtown commercial area with examples of stone and brick buildings that have been the focus of many restoration efforts. Perhaps less well known are the many examples of warehouse buildings which reflect Winnipeg's role in the opening of the West during the pre-First World War period. These buildings are now being celebrated by the Heritage Winnipeg annual Heritage Preservation Awards which were presented in February.
Given this increasing interest in our past and in our environment, organizations such as Heritage Canada are once again asking the Government to consider renovation as a means of stimulating our construction industry while preserving many of our finest buildings. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has every opportunity to give them the assistance they deserve.



S O. 21 INDUSTRY PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY-CREATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's petrochemical industry represents an important and vital part of the economy. Over 200,000 Canadians are directly or indirectly employed by the industry, and in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton nearly 10,000 people are employed by the petrochemical industry.
The success of the petrochemical industry demonstrates Canada's potential in world energy markets. The Western Accord, signed in the new spirit of federal-provincial co-operation, not only demonstrates the Government's commitment to the industry but also fuels desperately needed new confidence in the energy sector. The industry can play an even greater role in the creation of jobs for Canadians.
This spirit of renewed hope and enthusiasm is clearly evident in the unemployment figures for Sarnia released last week. The number of people collecting UIC benefits decreased in April to 11.4 per cent, a decrease of nearly 1 per cent from February, 1985. Undoubtedly we will continue to see a positive seasonal adjustment to the unemployment rate as the positive effects of the Western Accord filter through the system.

[DOT] (UIO)



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, we have just been celebrating the centennial of the Battle of Batoche in Saskatchewan, in which the Western Metis opposed the central government's troops. That fight for freedom, under the leadership of Louis Riel, is the symbol of an ongoing fight for the safeguard of the rights of minorities in Canada, and the safeguard of the respect for the various Canadian regions, especially Western Canada.

It is our duty to ensure that justice is done in our time. Louis Riel was a man who sought justice in his own time, not only for his own people, the Metis, but also for all the native people of our country. I wish to salute and thank him for fighting for justice for western Canadians and minority groups.
May we have the courage of our convictions to continue Riel's search for freedom, justice, and respect for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 14, 1985



S.O. 21 FINANCE

Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



THE BUDGET-REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO CREATE JOBS IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
* *
*
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard the unfortunate news that 700,000 people are on welfare in Quebec. In the press we read that Stelco is closing three of its plants, which will result in the loss of 550 jobs in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) was proud of the fact that according to the statistics, the unemployment rate in Quebec was going down, but what he ommitted to say was that instead of being unemployed, Quebecers are now on welfare. The people of Quebec are asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) not to cut back on job creation programs and to earmark funds for job creation to get people off welfare.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that all sides of the House agree on an issue, but I think that today is one of those very rare and special days. I am sure all Members will join with me in celebrating the results of yesterday's election in the Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tony Penikett and his NDP colleagues ran a formidable campaign, and will form a formidable Government.
But, despite the fine work of Mr. Penikett, I think he and progressive-minded Canadians everywhere could rightly criticize me if I did not single out for special attention the election role which was played by one Canadian, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Nielsen)-Yukon Eric.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, we believe that there is a fundamental right to life for all persons, especially children and youth. Although the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975, and by so doing pledged to uphold the principles set out on human rights, it continually violates them in Latvia.
Last year the Soviet Union intensified its program of military training in schools. On December 18, 1984, in Riga, Latvia, Iveta Zutere, a tenth-grade student, was mortally wounded when a gunshot penetrated an artery in her neck during mandatory military training. By the time a nurse arrived on the scene, the 16-year-old girl had bled to death.
1985 has been designated as International Year of Youth. It is reprehensible that military training and military exercises using live ammunition are part of the curriculum in high schools in Latvia.
A military order dated September 20, 1984, made it mandatory for all high schools, professional vocational schools, and special middle-educational institutions, to develop Young Soldiers' platoons and batallions. These young soldiers are then sent for active duty in Afghanistan. Clearly, these acts are violations of the Accords, and the Canadian Government would be justified in making the Soviet Union aware of our abhorrence of such actions.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["I think all Members know that I agree absolutely with the sentiments that have been raised, particularly the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).\nIf I inadvertently misheard the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) and cut him off in the middle of a question, if is because I thought he had completed at least the first part of his question and was proceeding to a second part. If I misheard him, I owe him an apology and I am more than happy to extend it to him.\nMay I simply say this. I have tried to tell the House occasionally how much time we are losing in Question Period because of the continual noise. I have also tried to tell members of all Parties that, in my view, the problem lies with members of all Parties. I have also tried to tell Members that in the end it is the Members' Question Period, and if the practice in which we have begun to indulge continues, it is not the Speaker that will lose, it is the Members of the House themselves. Therefore, I beg of you to help yourself and bring Question Period back to where I think we all want it to be."]
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Yukon looked at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did for Frank Miller, and decided that he could not do any worse for Williard Phelps. He was wrong.
The Deputy Prime Minister spent more days in the Yukon during the past few weeks than he has in his entire parliamentary career. He told the people up there that they should vote Conservative because he could offer them good connections in Ottawa. But Yukoners voted for good government, not good connections.



Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, if he does not feel too insecure today as his base in the Yukon has been severely eroded.
Last July the Prime Minister said in Prince Albert:
A progressive Conservative Government will abolish the imposition of capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continued agricultural purposes.
In closing, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister is not too discouraged by yesterday's results-
That was an important promise for farmers who are generally cash-poor and who look to their land as a potential retire-
May 14, 1985

merit fund. My question relates to the fact that the promise was made and the farmers, perhaps mistakenly, are relying upon it, which is immobilizing farmland, particularly in western Canada.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister impress upon his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and recall to his mind the promise which was made by the Prime Minister in Prince Albert, to ensure that the abolition of capital gains tax on farmland transfers will be inserted in the Budget?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that not only as a former Prime Minister but as a former Minister of Finance the Right Hon, Leader of the Opposition would not expect us to speculate on the Budget at this stage.


AGRI-BOND PROPOSAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Minister of State for Finance to speculate on the Budget. I am asking her to remind, through the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance of the undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister in Prince Albert. By the way, this is the most overdue Budget, in terms of the period between an election and a Budget being brought down, in modern Canadian history.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister remind the Minister of Finance of the undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister in Prince Albert last August that a new style of agri-bond would be make available to farmers with a long term and a low rate of interest? Would he also remind the Minister of Finance that the promise included that the interest rate would not be taxable for purposes of income tax? Would the Deputy Prime Minister remind the Minister of Finance of that particular undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly undertake to continue my discussions with the Minister of Finance and others of my colleagues who are very busily engaged in assisting in the preparation of budget material; so much so that I wish that what the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville said about my absence from this place and my presence at home was, in fact, true.
I would recall to the mind of the Leader of the Opposition that it was in 1971, when he was a member of the Cabinet, when the capital gains tax was imposed on farmlands in the First place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Fair is fair. I will certainly undertake to remind those around me who may need reminding, but I think it is only fair to remind those opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, from time to time of actions which were not taken or of actions which were taken that were harmful to the farmers during his time.
Oral Questions PART-TIME FARMERS' LOSSES


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's selective memory. It is true that capital gains taxes were imposed across the board in 1971. But I am sure he would also recall that when I was Minister of Finance I lifted the capital gains tax on the transfer of farmlands from one generation to another in families. He recognizes that.
When the Deputy Prime Minister is in a selective mood, perhaps he could remind his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the promise of the Prime Minister to lift the limit on farm losses for part-time farmers. When he does that, would he also consult his colleague, the Minister of Justice, who undoubtedly is up to date on his portfolio? The judgment this morning of the Federal Court of Canada in the Graham case defeats the Government's appeal against those part-time losses. Would the Minister get an undertaking from the Minister of Justice that he will not appeal that case and at least restore the position of the farmers?
[DOT] (U20)


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. gentleman is determined to undo the damage which he did in the Budget he introduced in the early 1970s.


IMPORT QUOTAS ON BEEF IMPORTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister for International Trade can confirm press reports that in fact the Government of the day has sold out the beef producers of Canada and is going to increase beef quotas to the European Economic Community from some 5.9 million pounds to 23.5 million pounds? That is a 300 per cent increase above the quotas which the Government imposed in December of 1984, amounting to something like a thousand carcasses a week of subsidized beef coming into Canada, which will have a devastating impact on our agricultural community and on the beef producers. Can the Minister confirm that in fact he has sold out these groups?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly advise the Hon. Member that at no time has this Government, nor will this Government, sell out the interests of the Canadian beef producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I can also advise the hon. gentleman that Canadian officials have indeed initialled an agreement with the officials from EC, but under the GATT procedures the

May 14, 1985
Oral Questions
agreement must be ratified by both parties. Therefore I am not in a position at this time to reveal the details of the settlement.


BONN ECONOMIC SUMMIT DISCUSSIONS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is very clear that in fact the Government has sold out these beef producers. This is just a continuation of its policy of abandoning the livestock producers and allowing a flood of subsidized EC beef into the country. Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister, in his recent meeting with four heads of Government of the European Economic Community, raised this matter? And why was he so unsuccessful in negotiating a lifting of the countervail which the European Community is trying to impose on Canadian agricultural commodities as a result of the Canadian quota? I wonder if the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister, in his attendance at Bonn, was not there to negotiate a beef agreement. That was being left with the relevant Ministers. I can advise the House, as I already have, that a settlement has been reached. It is now required to be ratified, and the terms of that settlement will be released in due course.


EDUCATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. A week ago Monday the Government of the Province of British Columbia took the extraordinary action of disbanding the democratically elected Board of Education in Vancouver. Yesterday it went one step further and disbanded a democratically elected Board of Education at the provincial level in Cowichan, British Columbia. Could the Minister of Justice inform the House whether or not he has investigated this situation? If so, has he made any public statement on it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as far as my knowledge of the Canadian Constitution goes, education is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces. This is a matter involving the educational system in British Columbia. I, therefore, have not investigated the situation, nor do I intend to, unless there is some allegation that somehow, in some way or other, the Government of Canada should involve itself in this matter.
It is a matter for the electorate of British Columbia to decide. It is an educational matter in British Columbia. I do not propose to interfere where no interference by the Government of Canada is required, nor expected, under the Constitution.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, and with seriousness, I say to the Minister that what is involved here is not simply a matter of education. It is a matter of fundamental democratic rights. Because the issue is serious I would like to preface my supplementary question by saying that in Cowichan the Board made it clear that it was prepared to administer a program imposed by the provincial Government. What it indicated was that it refused to violate its democratic conscience and own mandate by actually voting in its legislation for that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the Hon. Member thinks the matter is quite serious, but does he have a question, please?


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Minister of Justice is this. Considering that a fundamental democratic right of conscience is involved here, would he make it clear that the action taken by the Government of British Columbia, which is to deny the democratic rights of both the board members and the community, is unacceptable both in British Columbia and anywhere else in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this Government intends to observe the Constitution which governs Canada. We are a federal state. Our predecessors, and the hon. gentleman, might take the position that this is a unitary state and that the federal Government has the right to interfere everywhere. We do not take that position.
This is a matter having to do with the school system of British Columbia which is up to British Columbians to decide in the usual way. If they disagree with the policy, there will be an election in British Columbia in the next several years and the matter will ultimately be decided in that way. I do not feel that there is any place for interference which would only exacerbate the situation in British Columbia.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are a federal state with a Charter of Rights with a preamble which commits everyone to fundamental democratic rights. I say that to the Minister of Justice as well.


FEDERAL POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that this House, including the Minister's own Party when it was on this side of the House, joined in joint resolutions which have as their force moral leadership, not simply constitutional divisions of power, does the Conservative Government of Canada agree, or disagree, with this denial of basic democratic rights in the Province of British Columbia?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia
May 14, 1985

needs to call upon the Leader of the New Democratic Party here in the federal Parliament for assistance.
My answer to the hon. gentleman is that we are only going to interfere in matters which are within our jurisdiction. We have a Charter of Rights. Any citizen of British Columbia who believes what the hon. gentleman believes, can take action in the courts, and the Charter of Rights in the courts will be there to protect him if the Charter has been violated. Go to the courts where you should be going, not grandstanding in the House of Commons which has no jurisdiction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The Minister is no doubt aware that Stelco, the biggest steel company in Canada with headquarters in Toronto, is about to close three of its plants in Quebec, which means permanent lay-offs for about 550 employees. In view of this threat, I want to ask the Minister what kind of assistance his department would be able to provide immediately to Stelco, first to prevent a situation where hundreds of families would be without an income, and especially to ensure the viability and growth of the steel industry in Quebec.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, noted the news account on which the Hon. Member is presumably basing his question. We got in touch with the Stelco executives and they have indicated that to date no firm decision has been made. They want to have certain discussions, and until they have their position clearly identified I think it is very difficult for the Government to respond to the Hon. Member's question.


FUTURE OF EMPLOYEES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, that is not the information we have on this side of the House. In fact, we believe the company will be announcing the shutdowns very shortly, and I hardly think the Minister's remarks are going to reassure my constituents.
I will try again with the Minister of Labour, and ask him, assuming the worst scenario, if he would be willing to provide
Oral Questions
employees who would be laid off with pre-retirement benefits, under the appropriate legislation. Actually, I am asking him to let us know whether he would be willing to designate the steel sector in the Quebec region, so that these workers, if they are laid off, could benefit from pre-retirement provisions.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's entire question is hypothetical and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to answer a hypothetical question at this time in the House.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last week he suggested it would be the height of idiocy for the Department of Justice to pay its own legal costs for the very important court action by Operation Dismantle, which action established the fundamental principle that Cabinet decisions are subject to the Charter of Rights. Having consulted with the Prime Minister, will the Minister reconsider his initial response and agree at least to absorb the Government's legal costs, and not effectively cripple Operation Dismantle in its very important work for peace and disarmament?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, Operation Dismantle took action against the Government to stop the testing of the unarmed Cruise missile in Canada. That is the reason they took the action, not to establish some principle as to whether the Cabinet of Canada was subject to the Charter of Rights or otherwise. Let's get that clear.
There are two situations here. One is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered that Operation Dismantle should pay the court costs of the Government. That question is under consideration. The court costs could possibly amount to something like $15,000 if they were taxed. The question the hon. gentleman referred to was whether we would pay the legal costs of Operation Dismantle for this action, and my answer is no, we are not going to pay the legal costs of Operation Dismantle or any other group which takes action against the Government on such frivolous grounds as this. The Supreme Court of Canada found the claim to be thin and frivolous, that there was no claim disclosed by the Statement of Claim, and we are certainly not going to pay the costs of that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a strange definition of frivolity when the Supreme Court of Canada said there was a fundamental principle at stake here.

May 14, 1985
Oral Questions


FUNDING OF COURT CHALLENGES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, during the last federal election campaign the Prime Minister gave a solemn undertaking to provide financial assistance to groups such as the disabled, women's groups, and others, to pursue Charter challenges on important questions of national concern. In view of the fact that April 17 has come and gone and the promise is unfulfilled, when is the Government finally going to stop stalling on this important promise and ensure the Charter of Rights is available to all Canadians, including those citizens in British Columbia whose school boards were undemocratically wiped out, and make the promise a reality so that the Charter will have teeth and there will be funding in place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is a Charter of Rights here in Canada. It is alive and doing well. Any citizen or any group can apply to the courts if they believe they have a case under the Charter. They do not require financing by the Government. If they believe they have a good cause, they can find the money for that cause. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way it is and always has been in our country.
In the meantime the Government is considering whether or not to expand the present policy, which deals with assistance regarding bilingualism policy, to cases of national significance which affect the equality rights in the Charter, or otherwise. When that review is completed an announcement will be made. In the meantime I do not believe there are any pressing cases at the moment which have to be dealt with, but the principle will be announced as soon as we are finished our consideration of it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister knows that, during the election campaign, his leader made a personal commitment to save Quebec's petrochemical industry. The Minister himself authorized a $15 million payment to Petromont to keep the company afloat until March 31. March 31, that was a month and a half ago, closer to two months. I would like to know whether the Minister can tell us what measures he has in mind in the case of Petromont and the Quebec petrochemical industry so as to find the long-term solution promised by his Government during the election campaign.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member undoubtedly knows, it is not a question of finding a long-term solution for the petrochemical industry in Quebec; the problem is to find a
long-term solution for the petrochemical industry in Canada. Perhaps the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that we have been meeting with representatives of that industry. We have, of course, included in our discussions representations from the industry in Quebec, in particular from the Quebec Government. I want to assure the Hon. Member that in our view it is a Canadian petrochemical industry long-term solution that we are seeking and we believe we can achieve.


FUTURE OF QUEBEC PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the Minister's arguments, but what I want to know is how many months or how many years will the Minister need to find a solution? I would like to know whether the Minister has received the Bechtel report on the petrochemical industry and whether he has heard concrete proposals from the Quebec Government concerning the future of the provincial petrochemical industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's party led us into this problem in the past decade; surely they will give us a few months to lead the country out of the problem.


DECENTRALIZATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Mines.
[ Translation]
As we recall, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister made an election promise to the people of the Eastern Townships last July 24. He promised the establishment of a cartographic institute in Sherbrooke.
Here is my question. Can the Minister, as Minister of State (Mines), now assure the House and particularly the residents of the Eastern Townships that his Government will live up to its election promise and free the funds required for Sherbrooke's cartographic institute?


Mr. Della  Noce@: Have you ever been in Sherbrooke? Do you know where it is?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, this has been raised on a number of occasions over these past months. There was a discussion yesterday in the adjournment debate, and it is on record in Hansard. The Government has not taken a decision on this project, and it becomes one of
May 14, 1985

those major projects to be reviewed, along with others, by the task force and by Cabinet, so that the fiscal disorder we found can be corrected.


INQUIRY WHEN DECISION WILL BE MADE ON LOCATING INSTITUTE AT SHERBROOKE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made an election promise on July 24. I am talking about 400 jobs for the people of Sherbrooke, eight months have gone by since then, and all I want to know is when the Government will make that decision on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, the problem has been produced by the Liberals over a period of 10 years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When?


Some Hon. Members:: Twenty years.


Robert E.J. Layton: Twenty years, I am advised by my colleagues. I can assure the Hon. Member that this will be one of the subjects discussed in the near future as the Budget is presented.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Atlas Steel, Canada's major producer of stainless steel, is on strike in both Welland, Ontario, and Sorel, Quebec. Because of the importance of that industry to Canada's economy and international trade, and considering the welfare of the workers in my community of Welland, I wish to ask the Minister if he has any plan for the development of a strategy to outline new ways of uniting management and labour the better to meet today's challenge in the steel industry.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the industrial dispute to which the Hon. Member referred. However, in response to the latter part of his question, I can refer him to a steel conference which took place in Sault Ste. Marie last weekend, put together by Labour Canada with the assistance of our colleagues from the Departments of Employment and Immigration, and International Trade. We brought together 50 representatives of the largest industrial union in Canada, the United Steelworkers, and 34 leaders in management from all the leading steel companies in Canada, including the one to which the Hon. member referred.
Oral Questions
That group broke into four separate sections to explore, among other things, offshore imports, fair trade with the United States, technological change and its impact upon industry, the status and future of the steel industry, and the requirements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In his low level air defence announcement of May 8 the Minister stated that two of the companies on the chosen list were from Switzerland and one was from Sweden. Neither of those is a NATO country, and not all of the equipment has been proven or established. Indeed, the missiles are all new to NATO countries in Europe. It is crucial that an anti-aircraft gun, missile, and electronics system, blend with those of our NATO allies.
How does the Minister of National Defence justify to our NATO allies that his Conservative Government has selected non-NATO countries for the entire short list to produce a low level air defence system? How does he explain his acceptance of certain non proven equipment, when he and his Conservative colleagues advertised for an established or proven system? Is this why the $600 million project ended up back on the Prime Minister's desk?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not back on my desk at all. The announcement was made in the House of Commons last week, I believe. I thought the Hon. Member was here, but perhaps he was absent at the time.
It is not uncommon for allies within NATO to acquire their equipment from outside the alliance. This goes on all the time, as it has for years. In this particular instance I was very gratified to be able to say that a very minimum of 70 per cent of the requirement in fulfilling the LLAD commitment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! Supplementary question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I like your civility much better than the new civility brought in by the new Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 14, 1985
Oral Questions


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I said it was back on the Prime Minister's desk, not the Minister's desk. I would not want him to get that promotion yet.


NATO REQUIREMENTS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that the Swiss Defence Department has not purchased a system made in its own country, but has opted for the Rolland Missile System which is made by a French and a German company and is used by many of our NATO allies.
Is the Minister of National Defence willing to assure all our NATO allies, without any equivocation whatsoever, that any one of these three non NATO country proposals will meet the NATO requirements for standardization of equipment, and the NATO requirements-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please!


Mr. Forrestall:: I never said a word,


Mr. Speaker:: Then why can I hear you?


J. Michael Forrestall: Not me.


Lloyd Axworthy: Because he was shaking his head.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Member's question was long enough. The Minister may want to answer the question that has been asked.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Hon. Member would require quite a complex answer. In a word I can tell him that the very high standards of our NATO allies will be met. It will not be the first time that Canada's Armed Forces have led the way in new ventures, new fields and new technology. That has been quite seriously submerged in the last 12 years. However, we intend to rectify that and raise those standards in the hope that in this particular instance we will be providing a lead for our NATO allies.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for DRIE. Tomorrow the President of White Farm Equipment will be meeting with DRIE officials, possibly for the last time before the June 14 deadline. Peat Marwick is advertising all over Canada, and I believe in the United States, to sell off the assets of White Farm Equipment. In view of that, is the Minister prepared to
come to the financial rescue of White Farm to save 600 jobs in Brantford, and possibly another 400 jobs across the country?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member certainly knows, we have been having discussions with Mr. Sinclair. We have been having discussions with others who have indicated an interest in possibly acquiring the company, or certainly the assets of White Farm. In short, we have been trying to facilitate a viable takeover of the White Farm operation to ensure that it may continue.


AUCTION INQUIRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister guarantee the House that the federal Government will not sit back in the final analysis and allow White Farm Equipment to be sold off piecemeal on the auction block, but rather that it will be preserved as a viable farm implement operation?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member reads in Hansard the answer I gave to his first question, he will see that his supplementary question has already been answered.


VIA RAIL
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. As the Minister is aware, VIA Rail has announced its intention to discontinue the dayliner service between Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick, on June 1 of this year. The Minister must also be aware that Saint John is hosting the Canada Summer Games, and that Fredericton is celebrating its bicentennial as the capital of the Province of New Brunswick and centre of the universe.
In view of these two important events, will the Minister consider extending the life of the dayliner, at least until September?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and also for the numerous representations he has made on behalf of his constituents and all of those who are affected by this service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have considered the representations that have been made. Accordingly, I have asked VIA to extend the service until September 15.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 14, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That will provide for a morning departure from Fredericton and an afternoon return from Saint John.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am after an extension of a season. I hope I have as much luck with the Minister of Employment and Immigration as my colleague had with the Minister of Transport.
I remind the Minister that tomorrow is the cut-off date for unemployment insurance for fishermen. After tomorrow they cannot collect. The Minister knows that the ice blockade is still around the shores of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador. It has been there for a long while. As a matter of fact, this is the third year that it has happened.
As she knows, there are thousands of small boat fishermen who cannot fish and earn a living. In view of the fact that this has persisted, will she bring forward an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to treat fishermen like all other workers, and prolong unemployment insurance benefits until such time as the fishing season begins?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the Hon. Member that I am indeed very well aware of the situation. We have been monitoring it on a day by day basis. We know that the ice situation has been very heavy this year.
I want to advise him that the final unemployment insurance cheques will be issued on March 21-


Jean-C. Lapierre: March 21 ?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: May 21. I want to advise the Member that we are working very closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to see what additional moves should be taken in this regard. But that decision will not be forthcoming for a few days.


SPECIAL FUND SUGGESTED
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister give us an assurance that if the situation still persists after March 21-


Some Hon. Members:: May!


Bill Rompkey: See what effect the Minister has on the House, Mr. Speaker. Will she ensure that there is a special fund set up, as was done in past years, in order to ensure that that income for fishermen will continue until such time as the ice goes and the fishing season can begin?
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member and I are in the same category today, looking at March as May, but I want to assure him that I will make every effort to follow the situation in the next few days and I will make an announcement with regard to the situation by the 21st.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The decision to replace VIA's outdated and expensive rail cars with new double-decker cars was made several months ago, to the applause of many. However, the workers in my riding who would be involved in the construction are still waiting for the contracts. The railroad groups and consumers of Canada are still waiting for the contracts.
Now, we find that the awarding of these contracts has been put on hold on account of the upcoming Budget, and these groups are naturally truly concerned that the hackers and choppers in the Cabinet will destroy this program like they have done to others. Will the Minister give us his guarantee that the Government will live up to its commitment and bring in the revitalized rail program that he announced in January?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are committed to revitalizing rail passenger service, and we are also committed to bringing in new equipment. The Hon. Member will just have to wait a little longer before a formal announcement will be made with respect to the ordering of equipment.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that the delay in the awarding of these contracts could well lead to layoffs during the retooling phase for the plants involved? Will he move to avoid this unnecessary hardship by awarding the contracts at once?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of all of those implications. Quite frankly, however, we intend to build the cars in Canada. We intend to spread the business throughout all regions of the country, at least to the extent that that is possible. Taking those matters into account, it requires a certain amount of preliminary work before the orders can be placed. I am sure that the Member will not be disappointed when the final decision is taken.

May 14, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Relations.
Since the Canadian International Development Agency grants each year hundreds of million dollars in aid to Third World countries which then purchase goods and service from Canadian businesses, would the Minister specifically ask CIDA to change its policies and practices so that small sea ports such as Belledune, Saint John, Dalhousie, Rimouski, Churchill and Vancouver can be used to ship goods to developing countries as this would give an opportunity to small- and medium-sized businesses to bid for the supply of finished and semi-finished goods, as required under those assistance programs for Third World countries?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for this very important question. I can tell the House that I have already asked my officials to report on the purchasing and transport practices for all projects financed by CIDA. I have also asked for a report on the pros and cons of regrouping at a single port the goods to be shipped, and I have asked that information be made available to all cities and municipalities so that the businesses you have just mentioned can take advantage of our programs. I am waiting for the results of this review and I shall be happy to keep you informed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister knows, or should know, that pesticides seriously endanger the environment, particularly fish, waterfowl, the quality of water, and ultimately human health.
The Minister's announcement last November brought to a grinding halt a number of studies on the environment, on the effect of pesticides, particularly on the water environment and the elements I have mentioned. Is the Minister willing to restore the budget of the Canadian Wildlife Service so as to permit the continuation of these studies?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is interested in the use of delta-metryl as a pesticide in agriculture, I can tell him that I have been informed by my officials that they approve the controlled use of this pesticide and have so advised their Department of Agriculture colleagues.


OFFICIALS- ADVICE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Evidently, Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not realize that the views of her officials have been completely overruled. Therefore I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I know that the Minister is very keen on the effectiveness of his Department in implementing its mandate.
Considering the fact that in recent months his officials have been overruled twice by the Minister of Agriculture, in the case of Alachlor and Delta Methrin, which are very powerful pesticides, what action does the Minister intend to take to prevent this from happening in the future?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the Hon. Member that it is not a matter of overruling. He will know, from his own experience when he had the responsibility, that there are discussions between the various Departments and Ministers. Those discussions are carried on between the Minister of Agriculture and myself. Obviously there is a concern at any time in regard to the use of pesticides, but that must also be balanced with cost benefits. I think he is aware of that as well.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question about the British Telecom proposed takeover of Mitel. Is the Minister aware that, as an alternative to taking 51 per cent of the shares of Mitel, thereby taking control of the seconu largest telecommunications company in Canada, British Telecom has an unconditional option to take only 18.5 per cent of Mitel, which will leave control in Canada? In view of that option, which is clearly a fallback position for British Telecom, will the Minister not intervene to negotiate that British Telecom only takes that much of Mitel, so that control of this important company can stay in Canadian hands?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): Mr. Speaker, we have not received any formal notification, or certainly any application with respect to the FIRA process, concerning this transaction. I can only tell the Hon. Member that when we get the detail about the nature of the proposal, we will look at all of the alternatives and act in the best interest of Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the 18.5 per cent option would give the benefit of a link-up with a major company in Britain, without the loss of Canadian ownership, will the Minister undertake that that will be the first option considered by the Government, rather than giving up control of Mitel to British Telecom? Then it
May 14, 1985

could in fact stay in our hands here in Canada, where it was born.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Hon. Member that we have not seen the provisions of the agreement, and I am very interested to hear how he fancies himself as a business consultant.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, May 13, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order, please. Order, please.
I am in receipt of a verbal notice of a Question of Privilege from the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


PRIVILEGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious today from Question Period that the large numbers of Members in this Government are purposely trying to disrupt Question Period and to prevent those in the Opposition from putting their questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am well reminded, as are all in this House, that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that he was going to bring new civility into this House. If today is any example of that, then it is time someone left this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Not only was I not allowed to put my question without a lot of shouting and clamouring and, you, yourself, had to intervene on two occasions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -then, before I had my supplementary question completed, as a result of all this, you, Mr. Speaker, cut me off in Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am quite willing to stand here all day if the groaning wants to continue, Mr. Speaker. The people of this
Privilege-Mr. Hopkins
country have to know that the new civility in the House of Commons is not working. If we are going to carry on a Question Period, there has to be some decency extended to Members who have the floor. No one can speak on the floor of this House if everybody is shouting, and screaming and the Speaker is interrupting; which takes up the time of Question Period.
I hope that you will have a very firm hand when this happens in the House, Mr. Speaker, and that you will ensure that the time lost by a Member standing in his place waiting for shouting Members to be quiet is not deducted from his question time.
I thank you, Sir, for intervening a couple of times, but I only wish you had given me time to complete my supplementary instead of cutting me off because of the rabble-rousers across the way.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wish to respond to the same question of privilege?


Mr. Deans:: Why don't you just leave it alone?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the hooting and hollering is not only one way now. Members of the Official Opposition apparently do not want to hear what I have to say on this important topic.
I share the concern of all our Members with respect to the decorum in this place. I think the question raised by the Hon. Member is one which in technical terms is more a point of order in terms of our procedure. I rather suspect that from time to time you are obliged to stand in your place for the very purpose of bringing order, Mr. Speaker, so that both questions and answers may be heard by Hon. Members, including yourself, Sir. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), heard all of the question and the supplementary posed by the Hon. Member. I think the record will show, if not the electronic record, that he attempted to deal with the question in a serious and forthcoming manner.
In terms of the matter that has been raised, Sir, I think all Members understand that it is important for both questioners and those who are giving answers to have the courtesy of the House. Some of us who have been here for a while understand that enthusiasm on important issues sometimes causes an exchange that is not part of the official record. I hope that since the Hon. Member has raised this matter he will deal with his own colleagues in his own Party. I can assure him that I will deal with Members in this Party on the government side to make sure that the common and usual courtesies are extended to all Members. I think that this matter is one we should all pause to consider; and I am glad the Hon. Member raised it in this context. As I say, it is a matter on which Parties on both sides can take advice from the Hon. Member and myself.

May 14, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Hopkins


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on the important point raised by the Hon. Member a few moments ago.
There is a fundamental obligation on the part of all Members of this House to enable points of view to the expressed, to be heard, and to enable responses to be given and to be heard. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that today in particular Members on the Government side of the House overlooked this important point. I urge you, Sir, in the carrying out of your very difficult duties to make sure in particular that Members on the government side do not take the view that somehow or another they were elected to form a one-Party state and use the numbers that they may have for the time being to prevent Members on this side of the House from being heard. In not being allowed to be heard they are prevented from carrying out the duties for which they were elected, duties all too necessary because of the way Members on the government side are overlooking the basic courtesies and responsibilities so important in this Chamber.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had not thought it necessary to rise on this point other than to say one thing. It would be nice if we could have what the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) was asking for. Let us face it. The problem lies on all sides of the House and cannot be solved either from the Chair or by the House Leaders. It can only be solved if the Members show some discipline and some understanding of each other.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Members know that I agree absolutely with the sentiments that have been raised, particularly the comments made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
If I inadvertently misheard the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) and cut him off in the middle of a question, if is because I thought he had completed at least the first part of his question and was proceeding to a second part. If I misheard him, I owe him an apology and I am more than happy to extend it to him.
May I simply say this. I have tried to tell the House occasionally how much time we are losing in Question Period because of the continual noise. I have also tried to tell members of all Parties that, in my view, the problem lies with members of all Parties. I have also tried to tell Members that in the end it is the Members' Question Period, and if the practice in which we have begun to indulge continues, it is not the Speaker that will lose, it is the Members of the House themselves. Therefore, I beg of you to help yourself and bring Question Period back to where I think we all want it to be.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I rise to table, in both official languages, the Government's green paper on International relations entitled Competitiveness and Security: Directions for Canada's International Relations.


PARLIAMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(1) I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of the report of the commission set up to review salaries of Members of Parliament and Senators, which should be referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services pursuant to Standing Order 46(4).


PETITION
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to be able to present to the House a petition on behalf of concerned Canadians, many of whom are of Hungarian origin, regarding well-documented human rights violations in Czechoslovakia and Romania. These violations have been aimed at the Hungarian minority living in both countries and have included the closing of Hungarian schools, imprisonment of Hungarian dissidents and curtailment of cultural activities. The facts have been documented in the British journal The Economist and the situation was seen by the European Parliament in Strasbourg to be-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that he may make only a brief summary of the petition, not a reading, no matter how serious the situation is. I appreciate that it is a serious subject.


Andrew Witer: The petitioners petition this House and the Canadian Government to issue a clear statement of condemnation of these acts and that the countries involved be made aware of our abhorrence of such actions. I hereby submit 10,000 petitions in support of such a statement by the Canadian Government.
May 14, 1985


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, question No. 71 will be answered today.


Mr. Nunziata: Does the Department of the Solicitor General or agencies under his responsibility, currently employ individuals now in receipt of a pension from the public service, the Canadian armed forces, the RCMP or other service to the Crown in the right of Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) in which agencies are they employed (c) what are the total salary expenditures?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: (a)
and (b) Ministry Secretariat 8 (Employees-one under contract); National Parole Board, one (board member); Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 59 (public servants and 195 members of the RCMP); Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 7 (employees); Correctional Service of Canada, 5 (employees under contract).
(c) Ministry Secretariat, $296,604; National Parole Board, GIC-5, $58,620 to $68,990; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $7,630,600; Canadian Security Intelligence Service, $201,500; Correctional Service of Canada, $72,750.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy:
That this House condemns the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and the Legislatures by failing to use industrial, decentralization, agricultural, transportation and equalization policies as well as its Crown Corporations to further economic development in all communities across Canada.
Supply
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise in the House and to deal perhaps in a somewhat brief but no less confident way with the rather unexpected issue we must address today. The purpose of this ill-advised motion is to condemn the government for undermining the will of Parliament by failing to use equalization policies to further economic development; that is in part how the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) reads.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to this motion which 1 find without either rhyme or reason. Moreover, I find it passing strange and somewhat paradoxical that a few weeks after having fully debated in this House Bill C-39, to provide for the making of supplementary fiscal equalization payments, and at a crucial moment when the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is called upon to consider this equitable and fair legislation, that the author of this bizarre motion has the audacity to put forward such a motion, or perhaps is it due to a lack of understanding of the Parliamentary system.
Since he appears so anxious to deal with the subject-matter of Bill C-39, I hope to meet him shortly during the forthcoming meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, if his party appoints him as a substitute for the next few weeks. I am really eager to see him get together with his friends, the members of the old guard of federal politics, the self-appointed champions of Manitoba interests, who have the gall to condemn the government of Canada for providing Manitoba with $115 million in total supplementary fiscal equalization payments.
I ask myself, and you as well, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government. .. and I quote:

Has the will of the legislators been undermined by this measure?

And when, immediately before that, reference is made to equalization payments, are these also against the interests of Manitoba? The Premier of that Province certainly does not agree with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, because he quite freely and aptly said, and I quote:

I think it is a good step for Manitoba.

To my knowledge, the Hon. Pawley is not known to be a Liberal.
What about the Winnipeg Free Press editorial of April 3, which bluntly stated that this was, and I quote:

Ottawa's fair decision.

May 14, 1985
Supply

-and had this to say about what our distinguished Minister of Finance said, and again I quote:

The federal Finance Minister got it right.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not a regular reader of that excellent newspaper, would it be that the editor himself is also wrong, that he also thinks that the federal Government's intention, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), while thus supporting the highly worthwhile nature of extra equalization payments, or would there still be confusion in the mind of Manitoba's Premier, in the mind of the Manitoba newspaper editor, or again in the minds of the very large majority of Members in this House who wholeheartedly approved the Bill on additional equalization payments a few weeks ago? Or would it be more likely that such blatant confusion would rather lie in the clustered mind of the sponsor of that dismal motion? It goes without saying that I entertain doubts as to the seriousness of that motion as put forward.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of that motion has shown his personal lack of understanding, even his party's lack of understanding of the inherent complexity of social policies. Without any reference to his own concept or that of his party, Members of this valiant Government team fully realize that notwithstanding the essence and importance of equalization programs, these transitional measures and their additional adjustment measures have never been, are not and will never be indirect instruments of economic development.
Let us therefore recall, to clarify the nebulous and esoteric points made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, a few functions related to that equalization. Certainly this will help understand the facts.
Again I beg for your patience while I state once more that basic principle underlying equalization programs and their possible adjustments. The aim is to make sure that all Canadians have access to quality public services reasonably equivalent under reasonably comparable taxation measures. This essential definition was originally recognized and confirmed in successive equalization programs and the implementation of temporary programs. It was also largely complied with when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) set the additional equalization payments provided in Bill C-39.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, an additional lump sum adjustment was considered necessary by this government to correct a situation entirely created by a defective legislation passed under the previous government in 1982. Since the supplementary voluntary payment has been decided on a moral basis by the present government as a result of substantial changes in the assessment of basic criteria of the temporary formula, namely the changes in growth rate, the energy crisis, the
fluctuations of inflation, it has been clearly established that the temporary steps as well as the original formula had become inadequate. The setting up of a new and complex equalization formula will be discussed later when the government will have heard and exchanged views with all those concerned in the consultation process which will soon begin in order to come to an agreement on March 31, 1987. The bill will then be debated in the House of Commons.
Let us remind the essence of Bill C-39 so that members of this House may be aware of the decisive reasons and the courageous measures undertaken by our Government to make sure that all Canadians enjoy a fair treatment within the Canadian confederation.
Since the great change which occurred on September 4 last, the very responsible Government which we represent as well as possible has been deeply concerned about the severe reduction of equalization payments, especially to some provinces. This drastic reduction was the result of the transitional measures spread out over three years which guaranteed adjusted payments on the basis of a shaky program extended through the use of a financial crutch to alleviate somewhat the expected catch-up necessary by the projected evolution of financial conditions in a given period in 1982. Indeed, these transitional measures had been developed by the administration of which the mover of this motion, which is at the very least paradoxical, was a member.
As they say in English, it is the pot calling the kettle black. If I may suggest a very free interpretation of this saying, another way to put it would be that people in stone houses should not throw stones.


An Hon. Member:: In glass houses.


Claude Lanthier: People in glass houses should not throw stones. I stand corrected. This new Government of change, in a spirit of fair play and equity, in spite of the serious deficit unfortunately inherited from the previous Government and the mover of today's motion, obviously realized that it had a moral duty to provide additional assistance under the other existing programs, even though it had absolutely no legal responsibility to do so.
The cheeky Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has accused our Government of not giving high enough priority to the equalization program. Through you and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell him that it is precisely because our Government gives all the priority required to the equalization program and the conditions in certain provinces that we made sure to provide additional payments proportional to their functional needs and our reduced ability to pay.
Our Government therefore acted quite responsibly in a very healthy spirit of national conciliation and exemplary co-opera-
May 14, 1985

tion, two qualities which are quite new at the federal level. The electoral decision of last September was quite clear: The voters had enough of this mish mash of systematic confrontation and organized discord! We now work in a harmonious climate which is quite appropriate in a federal administration. We sincerely believe that this new reality has not been fully understood yet by the Members opposite, especially the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and his colleagues who still long for the atmosphere of negative rigidity typical of the former administration, which was already exhausted at the time.
I therefore find it unrealistic and even unbelievable that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry should now want to condemn this Government on its record which however short is quite remarkable, what with its approach of consultation and its friendly relations with the provinces and other Canadians.
Once more, I cannot believe that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was serious when he moved such a motion and I urge all right-thinking Members of this House to take a stand and to rise against this questionable and ambiguous legislation.
I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am the sole author of these comments and that my hesitations were due to the fact that I had trouble deciphering my own handwriting since I wrote this speech during the lunch hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) on his speech.
I would like to comment that he was rather selective in the quotes he made. In fact, throughout his speech, he never quoted a full sentence. All he gave us was bits and pieces. One of the things he forgot to quote was the reaction of the Minister of Finance of Quebec. When he talks about this new attitude and not being rigid and all that, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary, who is from Quebec, would give us his position on the so-called legitimate claim by the Government of Quebec that what the Parliamentary Secretary refers to as an additional lump sum adjustment is in fact a payment to which it is morally entitled, and I would like to know what his reaction is to comments by the Quebec Minister of Finance, who claims, and rightly so, that the Federal Government owes him more money, and when he refers to the consultation process, 1 remember clearly that here in the House, his Minister said that he was still open to discussion, and a few days later, he decided that everything was settled, and so much for discussions. Consequently, I think that in addition to referring to Manitoba's position, the Parliamentary Secretary should have mentioned the position of Quebec, which after all should be of greater concern to him.
Supply
I also want to say that although the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know that regional economic development is not just a matter of equalization payments, he only touched on one aspect of the motion. There are all the other elements, and 1 am thinking of the industrial, agricultural, and transportation decentralization policies. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very restrictive view of the Opposition motion, and in trying to narrow its focus he did not do it justice. Perhaps Hon. Members failed to grasp the scope of the motion, but in any case, we on this side wanted to submit for consideration not just one isolated aspect but a comprehensive set of factors that are vital to the economic development of a region. I would therefore like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say to that, and I also wish he would take a broader view and look beyond the narrow perspective provided by the Minister of Finance.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, part of the question of the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) was directed at himself, so I hope he will answer that part. As to the question he asked me, it is threefold: first, he wants to know why I dealt with only one aspect; second what is my opinion as a Quebecer; third, he implied that I have a selective memory, as he put it. 1 hope that sums up his question.
First, we discussed only one aspect because 1 am speaking in my official capacity. I am very proud to represent the riding of LaSalle, Mr. Speaker, but I am now speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). So I dealt with the part of the motion mentioned here and, of course, I had to be selective because other Members will speak to the motion. I was selective on one aspect, the part of the motion blaming the Government for undermining the will of Parliament by failing to act responsibly or to give due consideration to equalization policies inasmuch as they affect economic development. I wanted to deal with that particular aspect of the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Second, as a Quebecer, I think that the words fair play are well chosen. As to the remark of the Quebec Minister of Finance, I would say he made more than one and I had an opportunity to study them thoroughly. I was able to debate this question with the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau)-to his satisfaction, I hope-and 1 think 1 answered it. I would urge the Hon. Member for Shefford to read Hansard where that complex issue was fully debated.
Third, the scope of my quotations was limited because I tried to select those which are relevant to the arguments raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who, unfortunately, made the thrust of his debate bear on only one province. I had to answer his allegations. That is my answer to the Hon. Member for Shefford.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over.

May 14, 1985
Supply
[ English]


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take my full time as I do not believe the motion justifies that. However, I want to deal with it as best I can in a few moments.
I would begin by saying to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that, of course, we support the intent of the motion. We believe that the Government should use the industrial, decentralization, agricultural, transportation and equalization policies as well as the Crown corporations which it has available to it in order to further economic development in all communities across Canada. We subscribe to that. I find no fault with the Liberal Party's suggesting that that ought to be a matter for debate on a day such as this. However, I do seriously question whether or not the Liberal Party is accurate in suggesting that the Government should be condemned for undermining the will of Parliament and the legislatures by failing to utilize all of those available vehicles to enhance and improve the economic stability of the country.
I would like to make it quite clear that I do not for one minute believe that among the 211 Conservative Members who were elected to Parliament there is a will to use those particular methods in order to create the economic stability which we all desire. Neither do I believe that many of the provinces of Canada which have Conservative or Social Credit administrations, would suggest that Parliament ought to exercise its will and utilize those particular means available to the Government in order to solve the economic problems within the various regions over which they have jurisdiction.
I see the motion as being flawed. I agree that it is important to take advantage of everything which we have at our disposal in attempting to find ways to combat the economic downturn which has occurred in Canada. I also agree that it is appropriate to pay particular heed to the examples which have been set out by the Liberal Party in its motion. But I do not agree that it is the will of Parliament that the Government do these things. I do not believe that there is a will among those on the Tory benches to do any such thing. I do not think it has ever been exercised because I do not believe it exists.
There is a sense among some that this Government is wandering aimlessly in an economic sense and that somehow the Government does not know what it is trying to accomplish. Some people believe that the Government does not have available to it the knowledge which is sufficient to be able to chart the course, even if it did know what it wanted to do. Again, I am not sure that is true. In fact, I have begun to come around to the view that this Government knows exactly what it is doing. What we are seeing across this land is, in fact, what the Government desires to have happen. The Government does not utilize the levers of economic power it has available to it because it has chosen not to do so. The Government does not move in the public sector in order to try to create the economic
stability and, therefore, the job opportunities because the Government has chosen not to do so.
I believe the Government knows what it is doing. I believe the Government has a plan to return to the so-called good old days of private enterprise. This Government has in its mind that if only it could get rid of all the public ownership and involvement, somehow the private sector would re-emerge as the engine of economic power, and that this would result in prosperity beyond our wildest dreams. That is absolute nonsense and poppycock.
We could look back in history at the so-called good old days when, in fact, it was the order of the day for the private sector to have the first and final say. The Government never got involved. In those days how did the private sector manage to build up its fortunes and manipulate the system? It did it by paying low wages, forcing, people to work long hours, paying little if any benefits, not providing adequate health care systems, and forcing young children to work in factories and mines. That was a system which existed in the so-called good old days. That, I say to the House, is the system to which the Conservative Party of Canada would love to see the country return.
I find it most aggravating. I believe the Government does have a plan and knows what it is doing. I do not doubt for one minute that there are those on the back-benches and those on the Treasury benches of the Conservative administration who, not unlike their colleagues in many of the provinces-B.C. being an excellent example-would have absolutely no qualms about moving to longer hours of work for employees and getting youngsters to enter the workforce at an earlier age rather than seeing them become educated. There are those who would have no qualms about seeing cut-backs in health care provisions and cut-backs in education, and this at a time when the future lies in becoming better educated, not less educated.
I believe the Liberal Party has missed the boat in its criticism. It is absolutely correct in that those kinds of measures and levers are the right ones to use, but I believe it is wrong to suggest that the Government is not exercising the will of provincial Governments or the will of Parliament. I think the Government is exercising the will of the Tory administrations across the land and the Socred Administration in British Columbia. I think it is exercising the will of the 211 Conservative Members who were elected in 1984. In fact, I believe those are the very people who determined, upon being elected, that they would undermine the social fabric of Canada and move toward adding more to that great pool of unemployed who would be able to fight with each other to get lower and lower wages simply to have a job. I would say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party, well intentioned though their motion is, that it may be misdirected.
I look at what this Government has done and its almost blind adherence to a system which never worked when it was
May 14, 1985

in place, if it ever was in place. It is a system which could only work if it allowed almost uninhibited exploitation. That appears to be the kind of system which this Government is now attempting to put back in place. I hope my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), will agree with me when I say that is not the system which Canadians want. That is not the kind of system which we in the opposition benches want to see. It is not the kind of system on which Canada was built. Good God, we have devoted most of our lives on attempting to eliminate exploitation and to raise the lot of the average working families to make it possible for those average families to own their own homes rather than to live in accommodation which is owned by others. I have spent most of my adult life attempting to improve the health and safety conditions in the factories and in various industrial undertakings in Canada. I don't want to see those things slip away. I don't want to see us disregarding those kinds of things as this Government pursues the ideological utopia of private enterprise based on unfettered exploitation. I hope there are other Hon. Members in this House who feel likewise. I hope there is at least someone in the Conservative Party-anyone, sitting anywhere, I don't care, in the most obscure corner of the House, who will rise and say that he or she disagrees with this Government's intention to create the larger and larger pools of unemployed who will be deprived of the economic future which we have fought to create.
There should be an opportunity for everyone to find a job and to work at it and to use all of the available economic means to achieve success. That is where this Government has failed. It may have failed in a lot of other areas as well, but that is the area in which the Government has no understanding, where its Achilles heel lies, as I look at it today. It is a Government which has fond memories of something which no one liked when we had it, a Government which wants to take us all back to it, notwithstanding that it would be disastrous, not only for the generation which is presently employed but for many of the young people who will come into the work force in the future.
I did not intend to take up all of this time but I did feel it important to put on the record my views on how this Government is operating and what is wrong with it. I venture the opinion that by 1988, when we go back to the polls again, more of Canada's industrial base will be owned by foreigners and less of Canada's industrial base will be secure in the hands of Canadians who have a long and abiding interest in ensuring Canada's economic future.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the kinds of conditions which we have built up in the social, welfare and health care systems, which guaranteed that those who were in need could receive without being degraded, will be undermined by this administration. I remember prior to Christmas when we were in debate on universality-you will recall that yourself, Mr. Supply
Speaker-that Party argued that it did not really believe in doing away with universality, but we all know the truth. The truth was self-evident in the embarrassed looks on the faces of the various Ministers as they had to rise and try to explain their blurting out of ill conceived thoughts.
I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hidden agenda of this administration is becoming less hidden with every passing day. That is where the public of Canada will look when it finally has to make its decisions. It is no accident, and I know you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker-if you were able to- that the Conservative administrations in the provinces of Canada are now beginning to fall like ten pins. They are falling because the Mulroney-led Government is not living up to the promises it made. It is not fulfilling what it said it had as a mandate. That will be what will ultimately undermine all of the provincial Conservative administrations, not only the administration in British Columbia led by Mr. Bennett and his Socreds, who are the kissing cousins of the Conservatives, in any case. That is what will ultimately undermine the credibility of this administration itself because it speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It will, on the one hand, say whatever is required to be said in the most melodious, most mellifluous tones, making sure it is said with all of the care necessary to have it clearly understood. But someone else can rise a day or two later and say something quite different.
It is not that this practice came to that Party only after it became elected as the Government of Canada. You will remember yourself, Mr. Speaker-you might not admit it because you cannot, but I remember quite well-that in the Parliament prior to this one, on every single issue without exception, there was a Conservative who spoke on each side of the question. It did not matter what the issue was, there was a Conservative for it and a Conservative against it. That is on the record, by the way. That is still the practice. I remember it because it afforded that Party such a wonderful opportunity. If someone wrote in and said he was in favour of lowering the taxes, the Conservative Party could send out the speech of one of its members who was in favour of it. If someone wrote in to say, "It's time we taxed the buggers more", the speech of the Hon. Member who agreed would be sent out. That Party was in favour of nuclear development and opposed to it at the same time. I can remember going through that exercise; it was an exercise to behold.
I say to the Liberal Party that it could have been more focused and more pointed in its motion. There are ways in which we could have brought about a more speedy recovery from the disastrous economic conditions which the Liberals left to the Conservatives. We could have used the methods which the Liberals have set out in their motion. But don't let yourself be fooled, Mr. Speaker, the agenda the Tories are following is the agenda the Tories believe in. It is an agenda which all 211 Conservatives support. It is an agenda based on further deprivation and economic chaos.

May 14, 1985
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no questions and comments, we shall resume debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate this afternoon because it is very clear that after six, seven or eight months in office, the Government does not really have an economic agenda for this country. Last week I had the opportunity to visit two provinces in western Canada. Time after time I was told, in talking to people in Alberta and Saskatchewan, it was clear that the Tories had a very active political agenda but a very fuzzy nondescript economic agenda.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has a wonderful press organization. It is able to put together massive conferences where all these things can be discussed, but the Government never actually brings into the House any bills to improve the economy. It goes from one great show to another.
First, we saw that wonderful meeting of the Prime Minister and the premiers in Regina. It cost about $500,000 or $600,000. Dozens of officials were flown in first-class from all over the country. Great co-operation was promised and then, as a final stroke of economic determination, we were told the Government was going to spend some $695 million on job-creation and direct employment programs and it was going to allow the provinces to have a say in how it was distributed. Everyone sat around the table saying, "Isn't that marvellous. The amount which the Prime Minister has put into job-creation and job training is marvellous". But someone at the back of the room asked, "Well, how much was spent last year?" The answer came back, "Just about exactly the same". So I believe, Mr. Speaker, we really have to give the Government credit for putting on wonderful, wonderful shows.
When it announces job-creation and job training programs worth $695 million, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) doesn't just announce it here in the House, which is good parliamentary etiquette, but a conference is put on and $400,000 or $500,000 is spent to bring all the premiers in to say, "Isn't what we are doing wonderful?" But the actual impact is just about the same as in previous years.
There was an editorial in the May 12 edition of The Toronto Sun headed: "Will Budget be Worth the Wait?" It went on to describe all of the wonderful things the Prime Minister promised in the election campaign. It talked about how he was going to reduce the deficit. It said:
Remember how stirring he was on waste? That was before such trifles as the $525,000 bill for entertaining the Reagans one night. The PM was offkey in singing When Irish Eyes were Smiling-and so was the bill.
The Prime Minister also ran into a lot of trouble in London with the Palace. He wanted to make a real production of his visit to the Queen. His press agent tried to hustle over there and make all the arrangements. There was to be some good
pictures which would really show what a tremendous international figure this man is. But those guys in the Palace, you know, they always let you down. They just would not allow those pictures to be taken. Well, the Prime Minister will just have to make other arrangements in the future in order to get suitable pictures.
The motion before us today specifically condemns the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and relates that to agricultural policies in the development of communities across the country. In spite of the fantastic PR job that the Prime Minister does in promoting shows and extravaganzas, there is a touch of uncertainty and concern creeping into almost all sectors of our economy. This is the man who was going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. He was going to bring down a Budget within a month and really set the economy straight. But here it is May 14 and we are waiting for May 23 to see what the Budget will provide.
We know pretty well from the economic statement last fall what the Government is opposed to. It is opposed to renewable energy. It is opposed to things like the CHIP and COSP programs. It is opposed to programs like RRAP which help people across the country. It is opposed to providing funding for the CBC. It is opposed to programs which protect our environment, and to the construction of a new world class toxicology centre in Guelph. It is opposed to things like the Canadian Wildlife Service. The list goes on and on. But we really do not know what the Government is in favour of, and we are hoping that we will find out in this Budget exactly what the policies of the Government are regarding economic matters.
I would like to quote from an article by Barry Wilson in The Western Producer of May 9, 1985, which talks about how the uncertainty about the future bothers many farm groups. He says:
A large part of the unease flows from ignorance and confusion about the Conservative agenda for agriculture mainly because minister John Wise has yet to articulate a clear vision of where he wants to take the industry.
The task forces are combing through Government programs. As far as agriculture is concerned, I do not think there is anyone from west of Toronto on the task force; they are mainly from big corporations. They are deciding what is going to happen to various agricultural programs. The same thing is going on in Indian Affairs, and that report happened to be leaked this week and the Prime Minister immediately disowned it. But there is a great deal of uncertainty among groups, like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture who are quoted in this article as seeing these secret communities working away without even the Minister knowing what is going to be decided. I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) the day after these cuts were leaked and clearly he had no idea of what programs were being cut. That
May 14, 1985

is why there is a great deal of unease in the country in this regard.
We have the crisis with the Farm Credit Corporation. Last November or December the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a moratorium on FCC foreclosures, and said he was going to set up debt review boards as a pilot project. That pilot project has gradually faded away. The people who worked on it tell me there was a great problem with that concept, not because the people involved did not work hard, because they did, but because there was no support from the Minister of Agriculture. He refused to give the FCC the flexibility to make it work, or bring in legislation so it could be more flexible. So we will look with great interest at what the Minister decides to do about that concept, whether he will let it die, or will give the FCC the flexibility it requires.
When we look at the White Paper brought out in January by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) we can really see the policy of this Government with regard to agriculture. Clearly there was no sympathy in that document for the farmers of this country. The paper was written as though the Tory promises on taxation had never been made. Certainly they were never mentioned in the Minister's paper. In fact, it portrayed the agricultural community as being very well off. It said they earned twice as much as the average Canadian but paid only one-quarter as much taxes, suggesting that the farmers of this country are not paying their fair share. It went on to say that the average farmer is seven or eight times as well off as the average Canadian, quoting very questionable figures. The response of the agricultural community was swift and violent. Every farm organization in the country denounced the paper as unrealistic and unfair.
If, before issuing that paper, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had taken time to look at the Farm Credit Corporation report of last November, in which the desperate financial situation of many young farmers in our country was set out, he would never have allowed it. If he had read that report, he would have seen that approximately 17 per cent of our farmers are in serious financial difficulty and that another 7 or 8 per cent are in medium stress situations. They are facing very difficult times.
When the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs reported on that paper of the Minister of Finance it completely rejected his view of the agricultural situation in the country. It outlined major recommendations for a program to set aside debt by the provision of lower interest rates for a good share of the 17 per cent or 39,000 farmers who face serious financial difficulty. We are waiting. We hope that after having had his white paper on financial matters of the farming community rejected the Minister of Finance will adopt some of the recommendations of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It proposed a program that would require
Supply
nearly $100 million of financial aid. We will have to wait until May 23 to see whether the Government is prepared to accept the recommendation of that committee. It proposes that up to $300,000 be provided through the Farm Credit Corporation at an interest rate of 8 per cent over a five year period and that the interest paid by the individual would not be tax deductible. Therefore, this would clearly be for the benefit of those who are in serious financial difficulties.
In the FCC report of last November the criteria used to establish serious financial difficulty was, equity of less than 15 per cent, payments to service debt of over 40 per cent, or spending more on borrowings than that being put back in capital expenditures.
Looking at the farm situation which has developed since last November when that survey was carried out, we see a much darker and gloomier picture. Let us look at some of the other problems facing agriculture. There has been the imposition of countervail of 5.3 cents a pound on hogs being sold into the United States. That has the devastating impact of a 10 per cent or 12 per cent reduction in price. It is estimated that it is already costing millions and millions of dollars every week.
As well, the EEC dumped 51 million pounds of subsidized Irish beef into Canada last year. It took the Government three and one-half months to make a decision to impose quotas. Now that the quotas have been imposed, the Government is backing off. We could not get a straight answer from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) today. Clearly, the Minister intends to increase that quota from 5.9 million pounds to 23.5 million pounds. That represents 1,000 carcasses of beef per week, subsidized at up to 48 cents a pound coming onto the Canadian market during the coming year. We will hear the final word on that later, but I do not think there is any question in anyone's mind as to whether or not the Government has in fact capitulated on that.
That is not the end of the EEC beef story. Clearly this is a secret agreement, but it will eventually be made public. The quota of 21 million pounds for the United States is being increased to 65 million pounds. Nicaragua's quota is being increased from 600,000 pounds to nine million pounds. These are all very adverse impacts on the Canadian agricultural community in the coming year.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, in the Hon. Member's comments he forgot to mention several significant factors. When discussing the agricultural sector, which has been under pressure for a long time, it is important to understand the impact which the Government has had in the short time it has had to deal with the problems which exist. Is the Hon. Member aware of the $100 million tax relief which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated last November for the farm fuel sector? That represents very nearly $100 million in tax relief to agricultural users.

May 14, 1985
Supply
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) introduced a farm credit measure early this year; it will cost the Government approximately $16 million to lower interest rates which the previous Government allowed to rise to 16.75 per cent. They are now at 12.75 per cent. That is a significant indication of the awareness of the Minister of Agriculture and the Government of the serious impact that high interest rates have on agricultural producers and of the necessity of bringing those interest rates down to levels that farm producers can cope with.
The Member spoke about the exportation by the EEC of subsidized beef into this country. He neglected to mention that the previous Government allowed that level to rise to above 48 million pounds last year. That represented a very significant impact. The Member neglected to mention those things, Mr. Speaker. Does he recognize that those measures have been taken? We all know that the agricultural community is under severe pressure because of the cost price squeeze. Does he recognize that the directions which have been taken indicate an understanding of that problem and a real desire and intent on the part of the Government to deal with it as effectively as possible?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Government reduced the excise tax on gasoline. It also increased the tax on the petroleum compensation charge. This affects vehicles coming to and from the farm. We are awaiting for the other shoe to drop with respect to the Western Accord, to see whether or not there will be an excise tax increase. There has been no indication from the Minister of Finance as yet as to whether that excise tax increase will be placed on farm fuels. However, we do know that major farm service charges are being imposed on farmers for inspection and grading of farm crops and red meat. Although we have not heard the final figure, hopefully it will be something less than the $32 million estimated.
I am glad the Hon. Member raised the question of the Farm Credit Corporation. In fact, the federal Liberal Government had a budget last year of some $825 million in funds available in the FCC both from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and borrowings in public markets. Since approximately $575 million of those available funds were not utilized, FCC officials recommended to the Minister that farm loans over 14 per cent be written down to 12-3/4 per cent, utilizing those funds which had been borrowed by the FCC under the Liberal Government which were not going to be used for farm loans. In my opinion it cost the Government very little because the funds had already been made available to the FCC and had benefitted those 5,600 farmers. Of course, there were some 6,800 farmers with loans from 13 per cent to 14 per cent that were not written down.
It is particularly disturbing that the funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund allocated for the Farm Credit Corporation were reduced to $90 million as a result of the estimates of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Government of Canada that were tabled this year. This suggests that the Government is not planning any massive assistance to the agricultural community this year in the form of adopting the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs or other recommendations.
With respect to the EEC beef, the agricultural community is most disturbed by the fact that after 3 months the Government imposed a quota of 5.9 million pounds on the EEC for 1985. Clearly, they were using subsidized beef and apparently will be doing so again. It appears that the Government will increase that quota to 23.5 million pounds. I am told by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that this will amount to at least the equivalent of a thousand carcasses a week coming on to the market.
That is not the only increase. The quota from the United States will be increased by some 44 million pounds, up to 65 million pounds. I understand that the Nicaraguan quota level will be increased from 600,000 pounds to nine million pounds. Therefore, our total imports will be well over 215 million pounds when one considers other countries. This creates possible problems with Australia, New Zealand and other been trading partners. The EEC beef and the pork countervail is having a devastating effect on our red meat industry for both hogs and beef.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt proceedings with a point of order in relation to business of the House. I rise to advise the House that I designate this coming Thursday as an allotted day.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: I rise on a point of order Mr. Speaker. Could I put a question to the Government House leader?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: No. You do so after I have read the question to be raised at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions
May 14, 1985

to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Regional Economic Development-(a) Nova Scotia-Cape Breton coal resources, (b) Federal funding; the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-Social Security-(a) Child tax credit-Treatment in Newfoundland, (b) Request for legislation; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-(a) Federal unions- Government position, (b) Pension negotiations.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has just mentioned-I wonder if he could come back in this House-that Thursday will again be an allotted day. I should like to know whether the Government has no bill nor motion to introduce ... Quebecers and Canadians are unemployed. I think that the Government is really tired after only eight months in office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) knows that it is not a point of order.
We will resume the debate. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):
That this House condemns the Government for undermining the will of Parliament and the Legislatures by failing to use industrial, decentralization, agricultural, transportation and equalization policies as well as its Crown Corporations to further economic development in all communities across Canada.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Hon. Member who just spoke is willing to give up one of his Opposition days we would be very happy to bring forward legislation. I think it is quite obvious that the Opposition is running out of subjects, judging by the motion that has been presented here today. This motion has to be the weakest and perhaps the most incoherent motion that I have ever seen presented in the House of Commons. One wonders what goes on in the mind of the Hon. Member wo
Supply
presented this motion, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Perhaps the Ottawa Citizen had it figured it right in its article on May 3, when it called him "Spaced Out Lloyd". The article said that as soon as he sees space he sees stars and starts attacking. Today we are dealing with an omnibus motion that does not zero in on any particular policy, issue or concern in the country. Rather, it is a grab bag, scatter gun approach to give all members opposite a chance to rant and rave and whine while presenting nothing in terms of a constructive or positive nature.
I also noticed that this motion condemns the Government for its failure to utilize Crown corporations to further economic development. Again, that is another matter of inconsistency. The Hon. Member who sponsored this motion, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, tells us that we must sell our Crown corporations. The headline in the Montreal Gazette says, " 'Tories must sell Air Canada' Axworthy says". Again, that is an example of the inconsistency.
The other day he challenged the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to assure the House that we would ship 700,000 tonnes of grain through the Port of Churchill. He failed to remind the House in his question that during his tenure as Minister of Transport his government shipped the lowest amount of grain-437,000 tonnes-through Churchill in the last five years. The fact that the member is losing credibility is a reflection upon the credibility of the Opposition Party.
It is also very interesting to note that, as 1 understand, the Hon. Member who presented the motion made his speech and left the House. At least we have three of those Members in the House today. The last time there was an Opposition motion, there was one of them here most of the time, and once in a while there were two.


David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member should know very well that he should not try to impute motives with regard to those Members of Parliament who may or may not be in the Chamber. For the record, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member to whom he refers is at a committee meeting. I think it is quite unfair and quite inappropriate for the Hon. Minister to make slurs with regard to attendance in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 think the point made by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) is well taken. Without even going that far, the Minister or any Member imputing motives, they should not refer to the fact that a Member is present or otherwise in the House. It is not necessary to speak of motives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was not my intention to impute motives, Mr. Speaker, it was just to state the facts.


David Charles Dingwall: Withdraw.
4738

May 14, 1985
Supply


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This motion really has its genesis in the terrible state of the economy in which this country was when we assumed office. We all know that the economy of this country was in trouble at that time. Most if not all of our basic wealth generating job creating industries were barely hanging on when we assumed office. This motion condemns us for failing to address some of those very difficult issues which we are addressing and which we are turning around. I think it is worthwhile to review some of the facts. Let us look at one of our basic industries.
The Member who preceded me talked about agriculture. Let us look at the state of the agriculture industry at the time we assumed office. Farm bankruptcies reached a record of 551 in 1984; there were 488 in 1983, 410 in 1982 and 125 in 1979. Over 1,500 farm bankruptcies occurred during that four year period. That does not tell the whole story. It does not illustrate the number of people who voluntarily gave up, packed their bags, went away and left the land.
Realized net farm income in 1984 was $3.9 billion, less than half what it was 10 years ago in real inflation adjusted dollars. As a matter of fact that net farm income reached its lowest level since 1970 and the third lowest level since 1938, some 45 years ago. That was the state of the agriculture industry when we assumed office. Land values in many areas dropped as much as 50 per cent of the purchase value. The Farm Credit Corporation estimated 39,000 or 15 per cent of Canadian farmers were in serious difficulty.
Our Government acted immediately; we acted immediately to assist our farmers in alleviating some pressures of the cost price squeeze. We removed the federal sales tax on farm fuels. We triggered a $450 million interim payment for the 1984-85 crop year from the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the largest payment ever made. We brought in legislative measures to make sure that this legislation would conform to the realities and the needs of the producers. We brought in a freeze on the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls which has saved the farmer $1.5 million to $2 million. We imposed a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures. There has been a significant decline in interest rates since we assumed office. We are restoring branch lines which were dismantled, or were to be dismantled by the previous Government. We have established an inquiry into the future of branch lines to determine if short-line operations or other options are available and can be utilized for the provision of services in those areas where branch lines are being threatened. We are looking for new ways and means to improve the grain handling transportation system. We are amending the Western Grain Transportation Act by removing the volume cap, smoothing out the erratic fluctuations, providing a freight rate ceiling over the next two years. We have introduced a red meat tri-partite stabilization program. We have fulfilled our commitment with respect to dual labelling of farm chemicals to avoid costly mistakes and confusion arising from the arbitrary metric only system imposed by the previous Government. We have introduced a shared risk mortgage plan to the Farm Credit Corporation to help protect farmers from possible interest rate increases. We
have provided matching federal-provincial support to the Canadian sugar beet industry in order to make sure that the immediate survivor of this industry is secure while developing a long-term, long-range stable sugar policy in this country.
Those are the things we are doing, Mr. Speaker. That is not a complete list, but when you look at the commitments we made in Prince Albert, most of them are being acted upon or have been fulfilled.
Let us look at another of our wealth generating industries. Let us look at the state of energy. We all know that the former Government delivered unto western Canada and the energy sector the most pernicious policy ever delivered upon any industry or region in the country. The impact and the fall-out from that was absolutely disastrous.
I will quote from the Petroleum Resources Communication Foundation of 1982 on what happened after the National Energy Program. We have to remind this House and the Canadian people of the policies of the past Government which led us to the state of economic chaos we were delivered into, particularly that which we took over on September 4, 1984. This article reads in part that, with the National Energy Program:
-drilling activity plummeted from record highs to record lows. Of the estimated 10,000 wells to be drilled in 1981, only 6,900 were actually drilled.
Canada's drilling rig fleet is one third the size that it was a year ago with more than 200 drilling rigs moved to areas outside of Canada.
Geophysical activity is down 45 per cent.
Industry exploratory budgets are down 40 per cent.
The decline in exploration activity has a significant impact on Canadian oil reserves. Remaining reserves at year end were down to pre-1962 levels.
Cash available for reinvestment has been reduced 20-25 per cent; current taxes from the industry rose 75 per cent and interest payments on debt are up 100 per cent.
Alsands, Cold Lake and expansion plans for the Suncor and Syncrude plants have been cancelled.
20,000 jobs have been lost primarily in the drilling and service sectors of the industry. Hiring freezes have been adopted by many companies.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of situation and policy which delivered the economic pay-off that we inherited when we assumed the Government of Canada.
This Government was elected on a mandate of change, to bring about economic renewal and national reconciliation. The two energy accords that were negotiated are a clear indication that the national reconciliation has been achieved and that we have recognized that energy can be used as a major instrument, the major engine for economic growth and development. I think these two accords truly demonstrate the new spirit of co-operation and harmony that exists between the two levels of Government. We have only to look at clippings from newspapers to bear that out. For example, The Globe and Mail in its March 30 edition reads:
This accord is good for Canada. It enjoys the support of those who own and develop the resources, the vast majority of whom are Canadians. It reduces inefficiencies and distortions while it increases incentives and rewards. It does not ask the energy industry to "save Canada'' or bail out the federal treasury; it asks the energy industry to produce oil, gas and jobs.
May 14, 1985

The same thrust is suggested in The Gazette of March 30. It quotes the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as follows:
We welcome the March 28 energy agreement because it sends a positive signal to all investors about the Government's willingness to consult, to work with industry and the provinces, and to rely upon the market forces. We believe that all Canadians will benefit not only from the resulting revitalization of the energy industry, but also from the reverberations this will have throughout the economy.
I quote a Calgary Herald editorial:
Canada is the winner.
The Edmonton Journal states this is a good deal. It's taken some time, but it's a good deal.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald states that Canadian rigs are trickling back home. That is a good sign. The Calgary Herald of March 6 indicates that drilling crews are smiling now. The drilling fleet's employment rate fell on average 61 per cent in 1981, slumped more to 49 per cent in 1982, dove to less than half the boom time high to bottom at 39 per cent in 1983 and struggled back to 50 per cent last year.
We now have a revitalization in the energy sector. Those jobs that are being created through exploration and development activity are going to be a boon not only to western Canada but, indeed, to all regions of the country.
I will not go into the details of the Accord; the Accord clearly speaks for itself. It is clearly another example of this Government acting on and addressing those major and very important basic industries which can provide the kind of growth, wealth and the potential for jobs, not jobs on a temporary basis but jobs on a permanent basis.
The tourist industry is another of our basic natural strengths. We have a $2 billion tourist trade deficit in this country today. In 1972 we had over 5 per cent of the world trade in tourism. Today we are down to 2.7 per cent. We recognize that there are more than 100,000 Canadian businesses involved in the tourist industry. We recognize that this is a very important industry which we must utilize. It can be used as a wealth generator and a generator of jobs.
During the course of this past Liberal Government, our world trade fell from 6 per cent in 1968 to under 4 per cent in 1984. I could go on. I talked about the agriculture sector. I could talk about the small business sector.
In the course of the last four years of the previous Government, many small businesses were decimated; 80,000 closed their doors in 1981 alone and 750,000 jobs were lost. Bankruptcies averaged about 50,000 per year. Over 100,000 individuals went bankrupt during that period of time.
I could go on and talk about the fisheries industry, the forestry industry and the mining industry. They are really all the same. This Government neglected those basic industries, those industries which generate wealth, jobs and direct and spin-off economic activity. This Government has a mandate for economic renewal and national reconciliation.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, who sponsored this motion, has been criticizing us for not consulting enough.
Supply
A couple of months ago they were criticizing us for consulting too much. One of our major challenges is to put our economic house in order and to establish a climate of growth and confidence so that jobs can be created.
Here is a report card. Unemployment declines. The unemployment rate has fallen from 11.6 per cent in September to 10.9 per cent in April and 201,000 new jobs have been created. Interest rates have fallen from 12.38 per cent on election day to 9.93 per cent on May 9. Business confidence grows. Business confidence rose in the first quarter of 1985. The latest Conference Board survey of business attitudes and investment spending intentions indicated a growing confidence in Canada's short-term economic prospects. Consumer spending rises. Consumer spending is rising and that is good news for retailers. Retail sales climbed by 4.3 per cent in the six months following the election. Manufacturing orders are rising. New orders in manufacturing rose by 5.3 per cent between September and February. Price stability returns. The inflation rate in March was 3.7 per cent. The Consumer Price Index has been at or below the rate of inflation in the United States for the past six months. Farm cash receipts are starting to rise. The value of farm cash receipts in the first two months of 1985 was up by 9.5 per cent over the same period last year. Exports are rising. Exports rose by 11.2 per cent in the first quarter of 1985 relative to the same period in 1984. What about bankruptcies? Bankruptcies declined. In the first quarter of 1985 business bankruptcies were down 16 per cent from the first quarter of 1984, consumer bankruptcies were down 21 per cent, farm bankruptcies were down 10 per cent and total bankruptcies were down 20 per cent.
What a report card. Those are the facts. That is where we are at today. Then we have a silly motion like this suggesting that things are not improving. It is very clear that our policies are indeed working. It will take a little time, a little hard work and co-operation, but we are seeing the results in the evidence I just quoted.
I would like to turn briefly to transportation. The transportation policies that we announced during the course of the election campaign were very important. As I said, in most cases most of the issues have been acted upon. For example, we are working on a new revised National Transportation Act which will be put in draft form by the end of June.
On February 27, the provincial Ministers and I signed a memorandum of understanding that will provide for a greater degree of ease of entry, the elimination of rate setting and a more harmonious regulatory regime throughout Canada with respect to extra-provincial trucking. We are looking at ways and means of creating more inter and intramodal competition within all transportation sectors. We have asked the CTC to examine ways and means of freeing up the railway system. We have asked them to examine the effects of the Staggers Act in the United States, and the effect that may have on domestic transportation in Canada.
An aeronautics Bill has been introduced, C-36. It is currently before the committee. Amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act have been introduced. That Bill is before

May 14, 1985
Supply
the House now. It will implement most of the commitments made during the course of the election campaign, particularly the Prince Albert Conference, which really set the stage for our western manifesto.
We are restoring services that the former Liberal Government unilaterally dismantled. Twenty per cent of those services were dismantled without public hearings or debate. We are restoring many of those services. We are going to bring forth a new rail passenger act. Hopefully we are going to provide some new equipment to revitalize this system. We promulgated the Transportation of Dangerous Goods legislation. We are engaging in a tremendous investment throughout all parts of the country with regard to capital regions in air, marine and surface.
We have fulfilled most of the campaign commitments with respect to Atlantic Canada. Yes, we are rationalizing some services and trying to reduce waste and inefficiencies, but, nonetheless, this is part and parcel of the mandate that we have. We have approached this in a balanced manner. We recognize that transportation is an instrument for economic development and it will continue to be. Transportation is important to this country. Certainly we will ensure that the transportation services and infrastructure will be maintained and utilized as an important tool for economic development throughout all regions of the country.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the Minister's report card. However, there are a few items on which he gave himself an A-in fact in most categories- where I believe there should be a few Es, or probably something further than that down the scale.
The Minister mentioned that tourism is a very important industry. I believe all Members of Parliament will agree that tourism is very important. He mentioned the deficit which we would all like to see rectified. His Government, under his jurisdiction as Minister of Transport, has increased ferry rates in my Province of Prince Edward Island and in the Province of Newfoundland, thereby restricting the third most important industry in the Province of Prince Edward Island. With regard to park fees, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) is responsible for Parks Canada. She increased park fees for the national park in Prince Edward Island. We have seen an increase in gasoline prices. All of these things fly in the face of an attempt to improve the economic picture for the tourism industry.
Regarding agriculture, the Hon. Minister mentioned some of the things the Government has done for agriculture that he thought were wonderful. I agree that there have been a few good moves on the part of the Government. As far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, interest rates are not exactly where I would like to see them but at least they have stabilized. We should all be thankful for that.
What about inspection fees for potatoes and red meats? Since those inspection fees were announced last week my
office has been inundated with calls from representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the Province of Prince Edward Island, the National Farmers Union and, indeed, even from the provincial Government of Prince Edward Island. The Premier and, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture of Prince Edward Island are totally against any inspection fees for potatoes or red meats. This is the consultation process to which the Minister and the Prime Minister are referring. If this is it, then it is certainly not working. All these individuals, organizations and groups representing the farming community feel that they have been betrayed by the Government through its initiatives.
Indeed, there is no question that the action taken on the gasoline and fuel taxes for farmers and fishermen was a step in the right direction. However, I tried to get the Minister when he put the Bill through the House earlier this year to take into consideration highway transportation for potato producers and shippers who are taking their produce from the field to the market or indeed in some instances to the warehouses. Loggers and miners, for instance, were overlooked.
I hope to hear some comments from the Hon. Minister regarding those things. I hope he will take them seriously since he is a very important Minister in the Cabinet. I hope he will exert his influence on the Cabinet before the Budget is brought down on May 23. Perhaps he can have some of those inequities rectified for us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always take the Hon. Member seriously; I have in the past and I will do so today.
With respect to ferry services, I hope that the Hon. Member will check his facts, because I think he will find that in some cases the rates for ferry services that apply to the tourist industry have been reduced.


George Roland Henderson: For trailers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: All right, for trailers, but that is a fairly important element of tourism. Where increases have occurred we have tried to recognize the impact on the tourist industry. I have to tell the Hon. Member that there were fairly extensive bilateral discussions with the province.
We in this House must recognize that we recover less than 20 per cent of the cost of operating the ferry services in this country. When we asked for a 15 per cent increase in revenues we did not imply that we wanted a 15 per cent increase in fares. We wanted to arrive at a 15 per cent increase in revenues through a combination of more efficient use and some fare increases. We treated this matter very, very carefully and gave it special attention. We may not have been perfect in the application of those measures, but I want the Hon. Member to know that we certainly took the tourist industry into consideration. I know the tourist industry is an important industry to the Hon. Member's province. It is an important industry to Canada. We certainly do not want to do anything that would unduly deter the growth and future of that industry.
May 14, 1985

I would remind the House that what we are talking about here is very minuscule compared to what has occurred in the last four years. The Hon. Member wants to talk about high costs. Let us apply that to tourism. In the four-year period between 1980 and 1984 the cost of gasoline rose by 75.5 per cent. 1 am sure that had an impact on the tourist industry. The cost of transportation rose by 56 per cent during the four-year period that the Hon. Member was a member of the Government. The cost of alcoholic beverages, a cost which some associate with tourism, rose by 43 per cent. Those are components of the tourist industry. However, the 75 per cent increase in the cost of gasoline is a far cry from the modest increase that we placed on the tourist industry. I think the Hon. Member should recognize that as well.
Inspection fees are under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). I know that the Minister is now engaged in bilateral discussions with his provincial counterparts and representatives of the agricultural industry trying to work out a better arrangement to ensure that there can be some compromise. I am not fully aware of all the details, but I am aware that the Minister has received many of those representations and I am positive that he will be acting on them.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister referred to the new energy deal that was worked out with the western provinces. At the heart of that is the whole question of de-control of prices by which the price of old oil, brought on stream before 1974, will rise some $6 or $7 a barrel and the price of new oil will probably be brought down a bit. The net effect of this will be that the companies involved with old oil will pick up some $1.7 billion more or less and the companies that are involved with new oil will have their incomes decreased by about $500 million.
The fact is that the companies involved with old oil are largely the multinationals, while some of the smaller Canadian-controlled companies had a larger stake in the development and production of new oil. For example, 65 per cent of Texaco's production is of old oil. With Gulf, the figure is 70 per cent; with Shell, 75 per cent; with Mobil, 70 per cent and with Imperial, 50 per cent. The multinationals have a very large stake in old oil. Yet the policy that the Minister has lauded will have a detrimental effect on some of the smaller Canadian-controlled companies.
I would like to ask the Minister how he believes that this policy, which he thinks is so good, will really benefit Canada as a whole, and how it will benefit Canadian-owned or controlled oil companies which are not in control of old oil.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. The National Energy Program which we dismantled cost Ontario 90,000 jobs and Alberta 70,000 jobs. I can cite figures for the entire country. What the Hon. Member is failing to recognize is that the new and smaller oil companies to which he is referring are not complaining about the new western energy accord. In fact, it quite delights them by virtue of the fact that the PGRT is literally removed on all new
Supply
production, and particularly on enhanced recovery, the tar-sands and those kinds of facilities. Those are the basic job generators.
In so far as the multinationals are concerned, the PGRT will be phased out; they will have to continue to pay it, albeit on a phased-out basis. We will have a taxation system in this country. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that there are some deficiencies in the tax system, perhaps I might agree with him, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to put in place a whole series of alphabet soup programs which no one really understands, which cost millions upon millions of dollars to administer, which strangle the industry and which take away the potential for job creation, economic development and wealth generation.
Generally speaking, the Western Accord has been heralded as a major breakthrough for Canada. There may be some imperfections in the system but there are a heck of a lot fewer imperfections in this system than there were in the old one.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), condemning the Conservative Government for its indifference to providing regional development assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) told us about his interest in and satisfaction with the agreement on energy policies concerning the multinationals in Western Canada. I only hope that the Budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will not include tax provisions to help the multinationals which will no longer have to pay as much in corporate taxes and that the consumers will not have to pay the cost of this new policy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not share the views of the Minister of Transport, because I think Quebec is going to pay the bill. I realize the Minister could not care or less, since he is from Western Canada and is going to get all the jobs and we in the province of Quebec are going to pay the piper. I am sorry, but my first duty is to defend the interests of Quebec within Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House what this Government did as soon as it came to power. First of all, on November 8, the Minister of Finance cut more than $770 million from projects that were to be carried out this year in Quebec. Some of these projects come under the Minister of Transport, such as VIA Rail. A number of major projects were to be implemented in the area around Trois-Rivieres, at Vic-toriaville-this was a pharmaceutical laboratory. There was also the natural gas branch line program worth $85 million, and now that money will not go into Quebec's economy, and there are the jobs that have been lost as well. 1 could mention

May 14, 1985
Supply
the old Port of Montreal, the marina in Chicoutimi, the electronics institute in Shawinigan, and many more.
With respect to the Government's policy of privatizing or selling its so-called "lame ducks", nothing has been announced yet, and Quebec is at risk in view of this Government's decisions concerning Canadair. Five thousand jobs are at stake. At Teleglobe, 1,400 jobs. At VIA Rail, non-implementation of this project means a loss of 3,000 jobs. At Air Canada 500 jobs are at risk. At CN, 220 jobs are lost. And, Mr. Speaker, I could go on to mention the contract that Versatile lost because the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) decided to make a new call for tenders, although Versatile Vickers in Montreal was the second lowest bidder and the contract should normally have been awarded to that company. Mr. Speaker, there again, it means so many jobs that Quebec has lost.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the Conservative Government had cut $770 million in job creation projects for this year. There was also the fact that Quebec was asking for more than $640 million in additional equalization payments. The first request was for $730 million. Quebec was prepared to negotiate for $430 million. After all the promises and commitments made by the Prime Minister, it was only normal that the Government of Quebec, which I do not think is Liberal at all and which is still headed by Rene Levesque with Mr. Duhaime as Minister of Finance all they got as a consolation prize was a scant $110 million. It was entirely normal that the Government of Quebec, considering the remarks made by the Prime Minister and by all Progressive Conservative candidates that relations would improve and that according to the Conservatives, Quebec had been penalized by the previous Government, it was normal that the present Government of Quebec should expect, considering the offer it had made, which was, instead of asking for $730 million, to settle for $430 million. But no. What this Government said when it came to power was, that it could not care less about Rene Levesque and everybody else in Quebec. Here is your $110 million. Mr. Speaker, as far as equalization payments are concerned, Quebec is the only province that is losing out. Other provinces like New Brunswick and Newfoundland were not in a loss position to start with. However, to help their Conservative friends just before an election in Newfoundland, they gave that province some extra money. But in Quebec? Nothing! Mr. Speaker, this was not said by us Liberals, but by Duhaime. "Says, Duhaime: Equalization will go on harassing Quebec Conservatives".
The problem is, how can we understand this Government? "Says Wilson: Quebec must recognize that the federal Government could not do any better in the circumstances." Two weeks later, he signed a $2.5 billion agreement with the oil multinationals. That was not in Quebec. And then: "Equalization-Ottawa ready to listen". So another flip-flop. All of a sudden, another headline: "Mulroney agrees to reopen the equalization file from a more comprehensive angle." Another
statement, "Duhaime will not concede defeat". According to Jean-Louis Roy in Le Devoir, "An unfinished compromise". And finally, Mr. Speaker-those Tories are impossible to understand-another article by Maurice Jannard in La Presse: "Equalization-File closed, says Wilson".
Mr. Speaker, this will show that Quebecers can take neither the word of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) nor that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). As far as the Minister of Finance's word is concerned, he himself clearly admitted that, with respect to universality, he did not state the truth during the election. He only stated it after the election. But, Mr. Speaker, people in Quebec and in Canada are asking themselves: Has the Minister of Finance told untruths only as concerns the universality of social programs? On how many other matters will his budget indicate that during the last election campaign the commitments were fake, that he was going to do the opposite?
Another area in which I would like to point out this Tory Government's lack of interest for Quebec's regional development is housing.
In that area, this Government has cut $9 million from social housing projects under the Section 56.1 program aimed at providing public housing with the co-operation of the Provinces, co-operatives, non-profit organizations.
In addition, it has cut $25 million from the RRAP program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. This is a very important program in Quebec and in the Maritimes. It is very important to improve the quality of housing, but it is also very important to create jobs. Also it costs much less to the Canadian taxpayers, through the Canadian Government, to create hundreds and thousands of jobs than to change the color of the Armed Forces' uniforms, or to send 1,000 soldiers in Germany. Perhaps the Tiffany in Germany will be happy to get 1,000 extra customers, but what does that give Quebec or Canada? Not a cent more, Mr. Speaker!
As far as Quebec is concerned, not only the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) in charge of CMHC, or the Treasury Board executioner-because there is no way we can tell who makes decisions in that joint, probably somebody who was in school with the Prime Minister, because outside of them he trusts no one-not only did he slash, but where Quebecers are concerned he chose to penalize them. Because the people in Quebec decided for once to trust the Conservatives, in return the Prime Minister tells them: We will put the screws to you. As for Westerners, they are the Conservative Party. And to people in Ontario, he said: Here is a bunch of newcomers, we will give it to them. Before they wake up let us make a killing. And before they find out where the toilets and the offices are, the trick will be done.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is losing at the RRAP level $17 million that were to be invested in all the Quebec constituencies ... Those $ 17 million cuts especially affect rural constitu-
May 14, 1985

encies. Ontario is only losing $2 million. The Minister, to the question I asked him, and the President of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation had this to answer on that matter, to a reporter from La Presse: We had to make up under the RRAP because Ontario needed it and had less funds than previously. Then, Mr. Speaker, I said to the Minister: This is untrue because under the Liberal government we know quite well that Quebec and the Maritimes needed more funds under RRAP, because they had more units to repair while Ontario and the Western provinces received more funds under the program for the construction of rental units, because their rate of vacancy was lower than in Quebec. The Minister beat around the bush as usual but I am fortunate today, because I have learned what the amounts are. I was shocked to learn that Quebec was penalized. It should be emphasized that such a decision was taken before the Ontario elections to help a good friend, one Mr. Miller. But that was done to no avail and it cost Quebecers $17 million to help Mr. Miller who was almost defeated. If he was not this time, he will be the next time. Not only are we penalized under the RRAP, but I received today from the Minister's office budget figures for the construction of rental units. For Ontario, a first instalment of $15 million, a second one of $6.7 million and another one of $415,000 for a hefty total of $22,115,000. Quebec, you will be pleased to learn, will get nothing. It is as simple as that. Quebec gets nothing under that program, period. I hope that the Progressive Conservative members of Quebec who are here-they would normally have a caucus this evening-will ask the Minister some explanations and the list for their constituencies as well as their losses under the RRAP.
The Chicoutimi area received $268,000 in 1984 but only $97,000 this year, Mr. Speaker. In the Hull area, it is too bad that the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is not here. She is often too eager to rise on points of order to prevent opposition members from stating the truth and defending the interests of the Canadians, but I will say to her, Mr. Speaker, that she should shout this evening in caucus; Gatineau received $480,000 in 1984, but that amount has been reduced to $209,000 this year. In the Laval-Deux-Montagnes area, $225,000 was spent in 1984 but only $30,000 will be spent this year Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on and I am now trying to find the constituencies in the Beauce area.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should know that it is not considered parliamentary to refer to members' absence from or presence in the House. He often calls his colleagues' attention to this rule. Because of his many years experience, he should practise what
Supply
he preaches, especially after his colleague lectured us this afternoon on the need to live up to our Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I shall continue because I was precisely coming to this Hon. Member who is present. Something interesting in the Vaudreuil-Soulange riding, Mr. Speaker: $739,000 in 1984; $362,000 in 1985. Near Quebec City, in the Beauce riding-it sounds vaguely familiar to you, does it not?-$417,000 in 1984; $200,000 this year. Bellechasse, there we are! In the Bellechasse riding, $445,000 in 1984, $240,000 this year.
Mr. Speaker, I could continue with the list of all Quebec communities, both rural and urban, and indicate just how much this Conservative government has taken away from Quebecers: $17 million under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which is very important for the population as a whole, not only because it improves the quality of housing, but also because it creates a great many jobs.
Mr. Speaker, here is the heading of a newspaper article: "Demonstration at the office of the MP for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand) against the cancellation of the RRAP in connection with housing co-ops". The mayors of the municipalities in Rimouski County-they are not Liberals, Mr. Speaker-are very disappointed with the cuts made by this Conservative government.
There are cuts also to RRAP in the Arthabaska riding. According to this article, the funds made available by the Conservative government will make it possible to rehabilitate only one house or housing unit in each municipality. That is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.
Same thing in the Rouyn-Noranda area: the constituents are anxious to meet their Member of Parliament.
Let us turn to the Sherbrooke area now, Mr. Speaker. All the mayors in the Eastern Townships and the members of the Quebec Construction Association strongly object to the Conservative government's decision to make cuts to RRAP in their region, in view of the great many applications received and of the expectations of the people in these communities.
Mr. Speaker, the prefects in Eastern Quebec have formed a common front, in Matane and Bellechasse. According to a regional newspaper, their member of Parliament met them and said: "Ladies and gentlemen, be patient because you are not going to get a cent. I have decided it was better to change the colours of our military uniforms than to help you." That was his reply, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.

May 14, 1985
Supply


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is referring to some remarks allegedly reported in the newspaper he has. I would be pleased if he were to table it, because what he has just said is completely false. I cannot accept that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows full well, I presume, that the Hon. Member is not allowed to table documents, only a Minister can do that.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to table the document. I could remind the Hon. Member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Blais) of what he said to his constituents, that there was no money for housing, but then in caucus he voted to waste money on military expenditures, he does not want senior citizens to have more generous allowances, but he is quite satisfied to give out $2.5 million to the oil multinationals. I hope he realizes that his constituents are intelligent people. I know they are.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have amply demonstrated that, in the field of housing, Quebec has been and is still being taken for a ride. Tonight, hopefully, the Conservative Members will put that on the agenda and bring the Minister to his senses tomorrow at the national caucus. I am not asking them to rise in the House. I do expect them to rise in caucus and see to it that the $10 million funding goes back in the housing program. I will find out who rose and who did not at tonight's caucus.
I do not have to be there, Mr. Speaker, I have my sources of information.
Concerning the general agreement, Mr. Speaker, after all those cut-backs the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Conservative Members get up at their mutual admiration meeting and say: We signed a $1 billion general agreement. We reduced it by $770,000 million, $300 million less for equalization ... I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker. Then they turn around and say: We took that away from you for a year, but we are going to sign a five-year agreement to spend money.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying what the newspapers of Quebec think of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: Confused, Stevens unable to explain his policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, comments? No questions, no comments. Debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais)


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond today to the suggestion contained in the Opposition motion that this Government has completely failed in its agricultural policies, especially since this is said with reference to all regions of Canada.

The facts tell quite a different story and I am glad to set the record straight at this time. Where are they now? Where are they? I would like to refute-


Mr. Riis:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend reminded Members earlier that it was not considered parliamentary to refer to Members' absence from the Chamber. I just wanted to remind him of that point.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a perfectly bona fide point of order.
[ Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, sure enough when we are challenged for minutes and minutes on end and asked to answer and to prove them wrong, and someone rises to answer, of course, they are surprised. I will comply with the rules, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to refute the Hon. Member's allegations, one at a time, starting with the action the Government has taken in support of Canadian agriculture, then the action we have taken jointly with the provinces, and finally I would like to review some of the ways in which this Government has engaged the knowledge and talents found in this House in the development of agricultural policies.
Let us consider for example the fuel tax rebate. The economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November included a rebate of 4.8 cents per litre on farm fuel taxes. That is made up of 1.8 cents to offset the petroleum compensation charge, and a 3 cents rebate on the federal sales tax. These rebates will save Canadian farmers between $100 million and $150 million per year.

Those are accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, not smokescreens. This is not 20 years of waiting. Those are accomplishments that can be measured; they are visible and can be assessed by Canadians. This is important. I hope that tomorrow, many will read Hansard and find out the facts if they cannot get them elsewhere.
Another example, the Western Grain Stabilization Act. After final payments that amounted to $123 million last fall- [English]
The Government set to work to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to allow for interim payments. As a result of this Government's swift passage of that legislation, western farmers enrolled in this program received payments this spring totalling $450 million. That money was extremely helpful to a great many western farmers in defraying planting expenses for this year's grain and oil seed crops.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, $450 million, that is a lot of money. Reference was made to $450 million cuts earlier. There you have it, $450 million that were paid to help Western producers. This is important, because this Government thinks that agriculture is
May 14, 1985

still important in this country, after having been neglected for so long.

The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) suggests that this Government has not used federal corporations to the benefit of the agri-food industry, but again the facts tell a different story.

What about the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation? Despite the tremendous financial difficulties faced by this Government, we have made money available to Canadian farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation.

Since the FCC clients are generally the low equity, high risk farmers most in need of assistance, we recognize that this Crown corporation is ideally placed to ensure credit availability and agricultural development across the country. Here are some specifics.

In November, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced temporary relief, the withholding by the Farm Credit Corporation of legal actions taken against farmers, until at least the Government could develop new solutions to farm credit problems. Part of those solutions were announced the following month, when the authority of the FCC appeal offices was extended-

-to allow for input from the Board before foreclosure action is undertaken.
[ Translation]
In January, the Minister of Agriculture announced- [English]
-an interest write-down program for FCC clients who borrowed money in 1981-1982 when interest rates were 14 per cent and higher. Those loans could be written down to 12.75 per cent, which represents a saving of $80 million for affected farmers over a five-year period. In March the Minister announced another FCC program to help farmers cope with volatile interest rates, the Shared Risk Mortgage Program. Farmers who wish to use this program will generally get a lower interest rate than normally offered five-year mortgages, but the interest rates will fluctuate from year to year.

Those are our achievements, and I am pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is in the House to hear this, because as I am pleased to emphasize, that is money that has been invested in agriculture, those are initiatives that were taken, rather than having 20 years of smoke-screening. Concrete steps that have been taken in 8 months, making up for 20 years of neglect of Canadian farmers.
Supply

In addition to those measures, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is continuing to explore innovative new approaches to farm financing, with the FCC again playing a central role in policy formulation and implementation.
Just to mention one other Crown corporation reporting to the Minister of Agriculture, there is the Canadian Dairy Commission which continues to be the Government's instrument for administering the dairy program, valued at about $300 million per year, for co-ordinating industrial milk production and surplus removal, and even for special functions such as the donation of skim milk powder for African hunger relief programs.
I would now like to address another aspect of the Hon. Member's motion that the federal Government has not adequately consulted with provincial Governments. There are a great many examples of close co-operation, including the following. On October 1, Ministers of Agriculture for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Canada, announced a $60 million federal-provincial prairie drought assistance program for livestock producers who had been hard hit by last summer's drought. This program has greatly helped to maintain the prairie livestock industry, and its success is in large part due to the teamwork between federal and provincial officials in administering the program.

Last November, the federal Government and Minister of Agriculture and the Ontario Minister of Agriculture announced a joint fund of $15 million to purchase and process Ontario grape surpluses to be sold later on when the market conditions would allow it. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is a major industry throughout Canada. The needs are great and so are the interests. This industry seems to me, perhaps because I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, the most important one in Canada and it deserves all our support.
Mr. Speaker, Canada finally needed a Government which would support farmers and agricultural producers throughout Canada and which would be able especially to have producers from the Maritimes, British Columbia, Ontario, the Western Provinces and Quebec sit down around the same table. This was important, not to urge the provinces and the farmers and agricultural producers of all the provinces to confront each other, but to try to find true solutions to our problems, and I emphasize the word "try" because, unfortunately, we do not have the answer to all problems. However, we did solve many of them and we shall try to do the same in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, we have already started.
Last December, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government and Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture announced a compensation program for crop losses in the province of Quebec for the year 1983.

May 14, 1985
Supply
It was subsequently announced that the federal Government's share of the program would be $27 million and Quebec would contribute $4 million plus administrative costs.
[ Translation]
Now that was an agreement! It was a settlement reached by two responsible governments after negotiations in an attempt to determine the needs in each region of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. I took part in these negotiations personally and I can say that many members of the Quebec caucus worked hard on these issues and held many meetings with farmers from all areas to ascertain their needs, to understand them and be able to meet those needs adequately through a procedure and a program approved by Quebec and its producers.
I received yesterday a letter of thanks from the president of the APU, the Agricultural Producers' Union of three great regions, Quebec East, Quebec West and Quebec Centre. This letter, which I received this morning at my office, thanks me personally and the Quebec Members who are interested in agriculture for having worked with the agricultural producers. This was not achieved after 20 years, but after six months. We worked at it, we came to an agreement and some $30 million have been spent in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, another important issue was resolved a few weeks ago, that of assistance to sugar beet producers. On April 18, the Government announced-

-that it would provide assistance of up to $8 million, or $10 per standard tonne, to sugar beet producers in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec in co-operation with the provincial Governments of those provinces. Since that time agreements have been reached with Manitoba and Quebec, but Alberta producers will not be growing sugar beets this year.
[ Translation]
We made an agreement with sugar beet producers. We were made aware of this issue. We sat with them, we thought it over, and agreements were reached. Some negociations are still going on. We are still experiencing difficulties with one of the provinces, but all the same we went to bat for our farmers who were struggling against serious difficulties. I think it is important to realize what has been achieved in that area, Mr. Speaker. We knew that sugar beet producers all across the country were in trouble because of poor foreign market conditions, and we supported them. That is not hot air. Those are facts, concrete facts for anyone to see.

I will now turn to the subject of the Ontario Veterinary College animal pathology lab. When the Minister of Agriculture was in Guelph on April 29 he announced that the federal Government would contribute $6.5 million to match funds provided by the provincial Government for the renovation of
the Ontario Veterinary College. He also announced the construction of a $5 million animal pathology laboratory at the University of Guelph, which will not only serve area livestock producers, but will also be used in the training of students. Through numerous federal-provincial agricultural agreements the federal Government is helping to develop the unique production and marketing potentials of every region of Canada.
In the interest of time I won't go into the details of those programs. I would, however, like to mention some clear examples of the Government's respect for the authority and the talents of Members of this House in response to the false accusations made in the Member's motion.

It is not true, Mr. Speaker, to say that we did not further economic development, especially in agriculture. This is one sector where it cannot be said. I think no one in this House has the right to suggest that we have done nothing to further economic development in agriculture. Agricultural issues were raised more than 70 times since September, and I think it is important that we let the people hear about it or that, wherever they are, they read about it in Hansard tomorrow. I hope they do so that they know what really goes on.

Following up on our election campaign promise to take action in regard to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, the capital gains tax on farm land and the possibility of establishing an agri-bond program to facilitate farm credit. On February 25 the Minister of Finance instructed the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to hold hearings on the three tax issues. The Committee's report was presented early last month.
I hope the Opposition Parties will agree with me that the Committee's observations and recommendations vividly demonstrated the value of Parliamentary study of a pressing issue. All concerned parties had an opportunity to present their views on the three subjects and the Members of Parliament on the Committee were as straightforward in their analysis of the situation as they were bold in their recommendations. [Translation]
We have not left this issue up in the air. We were committed to consider these matters during the election campaign but one cannot simply snap one's fingers and table legislation without giving it some consideration and without consulting the Canadian people. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I, for one, have sat with Members of my party to consult groups and associations throughout the country, the people of Canada, who were anxious to be consulted, Mr. Speaker. When you have not been consulted for twenty years, you are pleased to see Ministers and Government Members sitting down with the people to ask them what they want, what their real interests and their expectations are, and to be able to discuss with them on how to achieve those expectations after giving the matter some consideration and assessing the impact. Now is not the
May 14, 1985

time to engage in extravagant expenditures and end up with a accumulated deficit of $226 billion, as we now have. We cannot be expected, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important, to introduce programs here and there and everywhere. We must be good managers. This is why the youth have elected us last September 4. They have made a harsh judgment on the previous Government, and they told us: We have trusted you, go and put your house in order, and that is what we have been doing since September, Mr. Speaker. It is not an easy task and it will take some time. We need the confidence of the people, as well as the good will of all parties, including the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. Given the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are now in a position, after eight months in office, to present an interesting picture to the people that shows how seriously we have taken the fiscal problems of the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of the principle of this motion. I have listened carefully to speeches by Hon. Members today. I think it is fair to say that in the past Liberals have accomplished some good things for agriculture, although I could not find too many examples.


Mr. Nickerson:: Name one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Surely if one is in power for 40 years something good must take place sometime, somewhere and somehow. While I am unable clearly to identify any, indeed there have been some rather minor assistance packages for the farm sector.
Let me open my remarks by referring to what has happened in my constituency in the last three weeks. I come from a constituency where agriculture plays a very major role. There are 1,200 full-time farms and a number of part-time and hobby farms.
I notice that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) is in the House. We are still awaiting for that clarification with respect to how the tax system affects part time farmers. That clarification was promised before the election, during the election and after the election-it has been eight months. I simply want to flag that for the Minister in the hope that we will have that clarification in the near future with respect to how the tax system affects this critical area.
Three weeks ago I spoke to a sheep rancher in my constituency. He is from a large sheep farm that has operated for three generations. His grandfather had settled in the area and commenced a large sheep operation. He took over this operation from his father and I believe his son will look forward to taking over this family operation. I say this merely to point out that this case does not involve an overnight introduction of
Supply
sheep ranching into the area but indeed an operation that has lasted for three generations.
This distraught sheep rancher came to me to say that the production costs of raising sheep on his ranch were far higher than the prices he was receiving for his animals. In short, he was saying that it is no longer profitable to run a sheep ranch in central British Columbia, no matter what the size of the ranch. Furthermore, he was using the most modern methods and sophisticated management techniques. He suggested that three generations of sheep ranching was about to end unless the federal Government could assist him. He asked if I believed that the federal Government could assist him by implementing measures to assist the farm sector in a real way.
I am always honest with my constituents and therefore had to answer no. While I hope the federal Government would do so, it was my honest opinion, based on information I had at the time, that it likely would not. Of course, this was not encouraging to my constituent.
Later that week I talked to some 40 cattlemen in my constituency. They also told me that their cost of producing cattle was higher than the prices they were receiving and therefore they could not continue any longer. It is impossible in a cattle ranching area of western Canada to continue such an operation, despite the most modern equipment and sophisticated management techniques. These are very learned food producers who simply cannot continue without some support from the Government.
They told me that they had heard of a proposed red meat stabilization bill and asked if such a bill would solve the problem. I said that it would not solve the problem because if such a bill were passed the price that beef producers would obtain would be an average of the prices which I have just stated are too low to cover the costs.
Until the Government recognizes the value of the family farm in agriculture and that those people must obtain a fair price that is reflected in the cost of their operation, we will not have family farm operations in Canada. It will be replaced by agri-business and corporations. A very efficient way of food production will be removed from the agricultural landscape of Canada.
I met another individual in my riding who, along with others, was introducing a rabbit operation; they would raise rabbits, slaughter and sell them. He asked me if there was any federal support for such a venture and I advised him that he could receive assistance through the IRDP. He indicated that those running the IRDP were not interested in supporting such a venture. They did not have any faith in this type of food production and would not provide assistance. This is another clear signal that people in my constituency are receiving from the federal Government.
I was also approached by a number of people who were becoming involved in the potato producing sector. They had approached the federal Government for assistance in developing a processing storage facility. They were simply asking for assistance to begin operations and were quite prepared to repay the loan. However, when they made their inquiries to the

May 14, 1985
Supply
various Departments there was no money for this type of development.
I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but the point is that after all the assurances from the new Government, food producers in my constituency are telling me they cannot make a living and continue their operations. I think these human stories and tragedies that are unfolding speak for themselves.
I am asking Government Members to take these concerns seriously because there is a sense of disappointment in our constituencies. On behalf of our constituents in the food producing sector, we are appealing to the Government to introduce policies that will enable agriculture to continue in this country in a viable way.
During the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in my constituency that his Party had a whole set of solutions to agricultural problems. Agri-bonds was one solution, but these will not be introduced any longer. The Conservative Party said it would change the tax laws to allow many deductions that are not presently available. However, there is no indication that this will happen.
The Conservatives said they would bring in legislation, such as the United States Farm Home Administration Program, that will allow people to deal with these large debts they have accumulated. We have heard no discussion about such a proposal.
The Government said it could introduce a bill immediately that would assist hard pressed farmers and ranchers. It is called the Farm Creditors Arrangements Act. That legislation has been left off the list.
There has been no indication that the Government appreciates the plight of the agricultural sector. As a matter of fact, in many cases the Government is turning its back on food producers of this country.
We heard the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelle-her) stand in his place today and allude to the fact that the Government had a great idea that would allow tens of millions of pounds of heavily subsidized beef from Europe to be imported into the country in order to undersell all the Canadian beef producers. That is almost as ludicrous as when the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), talking about industrial policy, announced that he had great news for the House. He said that Mitel, a world leader in telecommunications technology and the second largest telecommunications company in Canada that is extremely well respected on the international stage would be sold to a foreign company. All the Members on the Government side applauded for some 15 or 20 seconds at this good news. It is a pathetic day when Parliament applauds the Minister responsible for developing industry in this country for saying the best news he has is that one of our best companies has been sold to a foreigner, and that technology that we as taxpayers-tens of millions of dollars by the way-will now be drained out of the country and taken advantage of by a foreign corporation. That is the good news. If that is the good news, Mr. Speaker, what
on earth is the bad news we are about to receive as people warn us of the up-coming Budget.
This motion before us today suggests that we ought to condemn the Government because a number of its policies regarding Crown corporations have not been developed properly. I listened to the Hon. Member across the way talking about things the Government has done to assist the food producers. There is one Bill I am waiting to receive in the House of Commons and to hear Members opposite debate it; that is the Bill to do away with Canagrex. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said: "Listen, at a time when we are trying to expand into new markets and trying to provide economic opportunities for our food producers to sell their wares overseas, we have a good idea. We are going to scrap the Crown corporation that does this". Again there was some applause on the Government benches when the Minister stated that Canagrex is history now.
In the first few months Canagrex operated millions and millions of dollars of sales were organized overseas to assist our farmers. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about it. Here was a Crown corporation set up to assist the farmers in Quebec, Ontario, in western and eastern Canada and it was doing an excellent job. I have not read a single report that said Canagrex was not performing beyong the wildest expectations that people had for that Crown corporation. But the Government is going to torpedo it and wrap it up. As a matter of fact, the Government already has.
When you consider what is going on today, Mr. Speaker, and when we hear from the Government that it has done certain things to assist farmers, let us recognize that the situation in the country is growing worse. Let us measure what is going on in terms of farm bankruptcies, and I am not certain this is the most appropriate way to measure the health of the agricultural sector, but it must be one way. When you look at the record going back to 1979, there were 125 farm bankruptcies in Canada. In 1980 there were 222; in 1981 there were 261; in 1982 there were 410; in 1983 there were 488; and in 1984 there were 551. In 1985, if you extrapolate the number we have today, there are over 600. Over the last five years, in every single year farm bankruptcies have increased in the country. This is surely only a tip of the iceberg when you consider all of those people who are walking away from their farms, price collapses and so on.
Look at the debt the farm community was facing in 1979. Total farm debt was $14.6 billion at an average interest rate of 11.6 per cent. In 1981 that amount had increased to $18.5 billion with an interest rate of 15.46 per cent. Today farm debt is in excess of $20 billion and increasing. I do not know how you would measure the health of the agricultural sector of our country. The only way we have before us would indicate that things are deteriorating and the situation is worsening. Now is the time to call for extraordinary measures on behalf of the federal Government to show the leadership necessary to provide an environment for this sector to develop properly.
May 14, 1985

What can be done? I listened to the Hon. Member with all due respect-I mean that-when he talked about Farm Credit, the tinkering and how this was helping farmers. The number of farmers that were helped is minuscule and the way they were helped by lowering debt a couple of percentage points is hardly the kind of leadership we were expecting from the Government. I think the tinkering and adjusting of the Farm Credit rate is at best a good joke. It is no solution.
What we need to do is look to our financial institutions. On November 7 last year I remember opening up The Globe and Mail and finding on one side this great, huge headline, "Financial Woes Assail Farmers". That is expected under present conditions. On the other page of The Globe and Mail it said, "Bank Profits in Canada the World's best". While the farmers of this country were literally being driven to their knees, the banks of Canada were identified as the most profitable banks in the entire world. Therein lies part of the problem. It is time we looked to our bankers and said, it is time they shared in this dilemma. Why are their profits up substantially while the farming sector is being crushed as a result of these high interest rates? Some of the European countries asked their banking communities to recognize the value of the family farm. They said to them, why not have interest rates for 25 years at say 8 per cent for the family farm?


Dave Nickerson: Who is going to pay for it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) just said: "Who is going to pay for it?" I will tell you who is going to pay for it, Mr. Speaker. The banks will. Because their profits have been some of the strongest in history, and because the Canadian interest rate spread is the largest and widest in the world, I think it is time Members of Parliament, including the nice fellow from Western Arctic, asked themselves why Canada has to tolerate the widest interest rate spread in the world. We go on to ask, is what is good for the banks good for everybody? It is not, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly not good for the farmers. I think it is time for the banks to carry their share of business and to stop foreclosing prematurely on some of these ranches and farmers as they struggle back into position.
How can this be done, Mr. Speaker? If the Government across the way had the guts and the commitment to help, farmers having difficulties in whatever part of Canada, it would introduce right now the Farm Creditors Arrangement Act 1985 which would allow relief to those hard-pressed farmers. When people ask, what can we do, that is one thing. We can look to the banks and expect them to share. We can introduce measures such as the Farm Creditors Arrangement Act that was introduced in the late 1930s and 1940s. It helped a lot of farmers at that time. Or we can look to our colleagues in the United States, in particular, the United States Farmers Home Administration. We could say that we will set aside without interest for five years as much as 25 per cent of debt owed by farmers in distress up to a maximum of $200,000; that the private lender is willing to write down a portion of
Supply
loans, and to reschedule repayment obligations one could apply to the FHA for a guarantee of the remaining outstanding debt of up to $400,000 for operating credit and $300,000 for real estate.
This is not a radical program. This is in place in the United States. Again as an example of what can be done, there it is. There are many things that can be done. I refer to the work done by the National Farmers' Union in the last few weeks as they have been visiting the various caucuses, laying out a variety of proposals that would assist the farm sector.
In closing I want to say that I do hope the Government gives some consideration to the point in this motion we are debating today on decentralization. Decentralization is an opportunity for Canadians in their own communities to solve their own problems. There is a great deal of interest in the idea of people getting on to solve their own difficulties and not waiting for the Government or for large corporations to do it, particularly foreign corporations. What about giving people an opportunity? We could assist local areas to develop food processing plants, assist in the development of food storage facilities and so on to allow potential food producers to develop lands that are presently not in development. Again, there are a variety of things the Government can do. Let us hope it has heard the points made today, and that a week from Thursday when the Budget is introduced all of these suggestions are included therein.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais).


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member talk of the tip re the iceberg referring to farm bankruptcies. If this is the tip of the iceberg, I think that the bottom of the iceberg would be to have an NDP government in office in Canada. Such is not the case, and I hope it never is.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we agree to listen to the opinions of the Canadian people and of the Opposition on the problems we face in agriculture, but we had to wait for almost half an hour this afternoon for a single Opposition member to show up so that the Standing Committee on Agriculture could sit to study credits earmarked for agriculture, and officials from everywhere were kept waiting. It is not serious, Mr. Speaker. It is not serious. When the time comes to put forward your opinions on budgetary matters, as you have a right to do, you should do it then.
Mr. Speaker, since Canagrex was mentioned earlier, I want to say that a decision has been made by the Government and that investments as well as Canadian initiatives abroad have continued. When a Crown Corporation is done away with, the NPD obviously ... It is difficult for a socialist party to accept the possibility that a Crown Corporation might disappear.

May 14, 1985
Supply
However, when you try to make the budget work, the economic situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Pierre Blais: Don't I have ten minutes to answer, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Orders provide for a brief question or comment, as is the case during Question Period.


Pierre Blais: It was brief, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in responding to a question or a peculiar statement-one of the two-in order to allow my colleague to end the debate which his Party sponsored today, I will keep my answer very brief. If the Hon. Members wants to put up the farm sector policies of countries that have been led by social democratic Governments-every one of those countries-which are extremely viable, I will put them up against the Canadian experience any day of the week.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate today on this motion, I want to pay particular attention to that part concerning the activity or lack of activity of Crown corporations, and the role they can play in re-energizing the Canadian economy. I make mention of Canadian National and a number of its subsidiaries, whether it be CN Marine, Ports Canada or a host of other subsidiaries. I bring to the attention of the House that the role that these Crown corporations are playing or not playing is crucial to the poorer regions of this country.
I made mention before, as did the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau), of the cut-backs in ferry service by the Bluenose from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour. Members on the government side, particularly the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), find this to be no big deal. However, in that area of the country, particularly in that area of the Province of Nova Scotia, it is a very serious matter. In fact, the Premier of our province travelled to Ottawa to speak specifically to the Minister of Transport about this very important issue.
This gives ample evidence that this Government in its so-called desire to create economic wealth in this country has allowed these Crown corporations to abandon the responsibilities to those areas of the country which are perhaps in greatest need. The stalling tactics of the Minister of Transport to give us a positive decision with regard to changing that policy in Yarmouth is absolutely appalling to the people of Nova Scotia. It is a repudiation of the provincial Government, the provincial Tory MLAs, and certainly a repudiation and a shot in the face to the Hon. Member for South West Nova who has been attempting, as I have, to have this ferry service restored.
Another issue of great concern, which I believe the Opposition motion covers quite well, is the request made by the Maritime Farmers' Council. The Minister responsible sat in
his office and received briefs, delegations and representations from the provincial Premiers and Members of Parliament on all sides. He has elected to do nothing for the maritimes farmers. The request for emergency funding in the amount of $9 million has not even been answered.
The list goes on. It does not stop there. We recently heard that the European Economic Community may take action in terms of imports of various goods. This Minister has refused to send able negotiators there to represent the best interests of Canada. The beef industry is allegedly going to receive a slap in the face. Further importation of beef will be allowed into the Canadian market. I realize that some tough stands have to be made in order to represent Canadian interests. I find the stalling tactics used by the various Ministers not to be acting in the best interests of the Canadian economy.
What about Canagrex? That Crown corporation was set up to benefit the farming community in this country. Without any consultation whatsoever it was slashed. The operative word during the Throne Speech was "consultation". We found that the substance contained in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November 1984 was not "consultation", but "cut, cut, cut". Canagrex has gone. So much for assisting the farming community in Canada.
The New Democratic Party Member referred to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion as the optimist. He stood in his place today and bragged about the agreements he had concluded with provincial Governments. I think he referred to 19 agreements. He failed to mention that the ones that he concluded in Newfoundland were concluded during the provincial election. Most of the background of those agreements was well in place before this Government took office.
The Minister bragged about the agreements he has signed in Nova Scotia. The Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) is travelling across this country seeking greater input from Canadians with regard to tourism and additional moneys from the Canadian Government to further the aims of his portfolio. He finds that they have given a meagre $14 million to an entire province for tourism. I say shame! That will not cover one region of the Province of Nova Scotia.
The Minister failed to mention in any debate the agreements that he has not concluded with provincial Governments. This Minister is dragging his feet with regard to the SYSCO modernization plans, an agreement concluded in writing by the provincial Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. The Minister responsible is refusing to live up to his part of the agreement. The rationale has never been explained in this House or to the Canadian people. We only hear the Minister say they might review it, or they are going to review it. Meanwhile, hundreds of jobs are being put in jeopardy.
I could go on, but let me conclude with two points regarding decentralization. The decentralization of offices and services from areas which do not really need them to other areas of this country has been terminated by the Government. Of course, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an economic
May 14, 1985

475!
tool that the Government ought to utilize for the benefit of all Canadians. We are seeing the complete opposite. The Government is trying to wind down the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I believe that the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), is right both in its spirit and its substance.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minsiter of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) on May 8, and 1 was somewhat surprised by his answer. He said that money was approved for the further opening of a tunnel at the Donkin Mine. Since that time, statements have been made by the Chairman of the Board of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as well as by the President, indicating that no money has been approved. The press secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is not aware of any money being approved for the opening of new tunnels to new coal mines in Cape Breton. There has been absolutely no such approval. Such a request is before the Treasury Board in Cabinet, but the Minister quite conveniently said to the House, and to you, Sir, that the expenditure of this money had been approved. I am not suggesting that the Minister intentionally misled the House, but there are certainly some very strong arguments to suggest that one could conclude that that happened.
Notwithstanding the Minsiter's comments, I am afraid that his answer is not satisfactory. We in industrial Cape Breton want a clear commitment on the part of the Government of Canada with regard to new and expanded coal developments in that area of Canada. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the energy policy, both in spririt and in substance, is based primarily upon the utilization of Cape Breton coal. That is the fundamental policy thurst of the Conservative Government of Nova Soctia.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has an obligation to the provincial Government of Nova Scotia. He has an obligation to those coal mining communities that depend in large part on the viability and future of those coal mines for jobs, for economic wealth and for job opportunities for their families. For the Minister to give no commitment to the Nova
Adjournment Debate
Scotia Government and the people of that area is, in my view, and abdication of his responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown, and it is an outright repudiation of a Tory Premier, John Buchanan.
Before a large audience in industrial Cape Breton the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) clearly spelled out that he was committed to coal and steel. I suggest that when commitments are made by politicians, particularly those who go on to become the Prime Minister of Canada, they ought to be lived up to. This Prime Minister is allowing his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to allow a particular resource industry in my province to go on without a firm commitment from the Government of Canada.
It is fine and dandy for the Minister to tell us that Devco has made a profit for the first time in "X" number of years. But, the fact is that the Minister had nothing to do with that. The present President had nothing to do with that. It was well in place before the Government assumed power. It is an irrelevant point. It is particularly odd that the Minister stood in his place and told us that Devco had made a profit, but could not tell us what the profit was because the statements had not been audited. I find that very misleading; or, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it could be argued as being misleading.
Why does the Minister not come clean and tell us the answers? I will tell the House why. It is because this Government has said no to the Government of Nova Scotia with regard to future coal developments on the Island of Cape Breton. The Government has said no to the mining communities in those areas. It will not put additional moneys into the coal industry. The Government will flirt with some research moneys, but it will not continue assisting with new coal developments in Cape Breton.
The Minister said that the company has broken a promise. A total of 1,200 miners are walking the street as a result of the lack of commitment by the national Government. It is not only unfair in terms of regional development policy, it flies in the face of everything which the Prime Minister has allegedly tried to do in terms of co-operation with both levels of Government. It is not going ahead.
Two things could have happened. The Government of Nova Scotia could have backed off on its request for additional moneys for coal development in Glace Bay-and I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary zero in on that-or the Prime Minister could have given a directive to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to change the mandate of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and to run it like a business, because the Government would not provide further dollars for coal developments. I say that is a sick energy policy by a sick Minister, with a sick Prime Minister and a sick Government.

May 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with the same aggressive tone used by the Member of the Opposition, I would like to refer him first to the answer given by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to his question last May 8. Had he been here, he could also have heard the position of the Minister and the Government during the allotted day of May 3 and today. I think he would have had some of the answers.


David Charles Dingwall: I was here. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but we do not generally hear points of order during the Adjournment Debate. In order to allow everyone to have their time, we do not allow points of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: I think you could at least have listened to what the Minister said today and last May 3 as well.
When it comes to federal-provincial co-operation, it is a fact indeed that co-operation between this Government and the provinces, including Nova Scotia did improve.
Last April 30, the Minister of Energy and Mines of Nova Scotia, the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the new chairman of the board of the corporation got together to discuss mining development projects, the corporation's production and the market outlook.
Mr. Matheson stated that better corporation management had put Nova Scotia's coal industry in a better position than it had known for years. He was pleased to learn that production and productivity have improved at Lingan Mine and Prince Mine. The unions full co-operation was an important factor. Mr. Matheson also welcomed the fact that coal production facilities will be able to meet the increasing needs of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation.
This press release shows evidence of the co-operation that exists between the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia concerning coal and energy policies, and the development of coal resources in the province. Besides it was agreed that the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Nova Scotia government would meet on a quarterly basis to discuss matters related to this industry.
As was mentioned by the opposition member, the profits of the Corporation are under review. The financial data for the current fiscal year are being gathered and examined by external auditors.
For the preceding fiscal year, ending on March 31, 1984, the Corporation had declared $49.6 million in operating losses. The Corporation intends to allocate 10 per cent of its operating profits to its Coal Division employees.


SOCIAL SECURITY-CHILD TAX CREDIT-TREATMENT IN NEWFOUNDLAND. (B) REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is not in the House today-


Mr. Lewis:: That's a cheap shot.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is clear from the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia that this Government is ignoring eastern Canada. That is one of the reasons for my request tonight to speak on the issue of the refusal of the Minister to act on the Newfoundland Government's total abuse of the tax credit system as it affects single parents, particularly those people who need the money the most.
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Members on this side of the House were incensed to discover that the Government of Newfoundland was using the federal tax credits to gouge money from single parents; people like Shirley Parsons who could not even pay her electric bill because the money she was receiving as a single parent was insufficient. She went to the welfare department to ask for help. This was not a lolly-gagging layabout. This woman had a part-time job and she was seeking full-time employment in a province where the level of unemployment is higher than anywhere in Canada. She was supporting a family and she needed some help with her electric bill. Before the Newfoundland Government would give her help to pay the bill for the utility, which is in fact contracted for by the Newfoundland Government, it forced her to sign a statement to the effect that she would turn over her federal child tax credit to the Government.
When we raised this issue in the House, the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare denied any knowledge of such a request. He denied any knowledge of the fact that the Newfoundland Government was intent on squeezing blood from a stone. The Minister, instead of embarking on a nationwide study to see whether this type of practice is being followed by other provinces, washed his hands of the whole situation and said it did not exist.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Newfoundland Government could not take the political heat, and in the few days leading up to the elections in Newfoundland it went to Mrs. Parsons and said, "We will pay your heating bill. We will pay you everything as long as you keep your mouth shut". But I must say that this woman had the courage of her convictions. She laid it out before the public. She told the Newfoundland Government that she was not speaking just on her own behalf, but on behalf of literally thousands of other people, primarily women and single parents, who find themselves in the position of being unable to pay the exorbitant charges inflicted on them by the Newfoundland Power and Light Company.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister chose to ignore his responsibility to ensure that the child tax credits are not used by provincial Governments to extract dollars from
May 14, 1985

single parents and needy individuals. The purpose of the child tax credit from the very beginning was to assist those people who need help the most. It is clear that the Newfoundland Government's policy, which was stated in documents distributed in welfare offices across the province, was a clear violation of the spirit of the child tax credit as enacted by former Liberal federal Governments.
Notwithstanding the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare about how they were going to preserve universality, preserve the child tax credit, did he use this opportunity to send a clear message to the provinces? Did he use this opportunity to say no, you are not going to touch that money because it belongs to Shirley Parsons and all of those single parents who are out there struggling to make ends meet? Did he lay down the law and tell Brian Peckford and the Newfoundland Conservatives that they were not going to pay the provincial heating bills on the backs of poor single parents? No, he washed his hands of the issue and said it was not his fault, it was the fault of the Newfoundland Government, or it is a misunderstanding. Who cares that hundreds if not thousands of single parents are being gouged for their electrical bills.
In the same manner the Minister has washed his hands of the medical crisis in British Columbia. When confronted with a clear and present violation of the Canada Health Act, did the Minister fight for the rights of Canadians, as did the former Minister, Monique Begin? Did the Minister go to the Government of British Columbia and say, Bill C-50 is a travesty, a violation of the Canada Health Act? Did he say that Bill C-50 must be nipped in the bud? No, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit, cum Progressive Conservative Government in British Columbia, was aided and abetted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has known about this violation of the Canada Health Act for months but has chosen to wash his hands of the issue because he does not have the political guts to go to his colleagues in the provinces and say that this Government is committed to ensuring accessibility under the Canada Health Act; this Government is committed to ensuring accessibility to the child tax credit for all those who need it.
No, Mr. Speaker, when push comes to shove this Government is prepared to kneel and bow and scrape to those provincial Governments who would utilize mechanisms like the child tax credit and the Canada Health Act for their own gain.
This Party introduced the child tax credit and the Canada Health Act, and we are going to fight for Canadians, a job which is not being done by this current Progressive Conservative Government.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) about the
Adjournment Debate
situation in Newfoundland where people were required to sign over their child tax credit before they could get any help from the Department of Social Services to pay their heating bills.
The Minister answered that officials in his Department had spoken with officials of the Newfoundland Government who had stated very clearly that it was not government policy to ask people to sign over their child tax credit before they could get any financial help. The provincial officials stated that the form signed by Shirley Parsons had never been approved by the Department of Social Services. They regretted what had happened to Mrs. Parsons and informed the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare that she would get the financial assistance needed to pay her heating bill without signing over her child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read now a Telex sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Hon. R. C. Brett, Minister of Social Services in Newfoundland:

This will serve to confirm information provided by my officials during the past few days that it is not the policy of the Newfoundland Department of Social Services to require or request assignments to the Department of Child Tax Credit payments for any purpose. Unfortunately this did occur in error in a very small number of cases. The matter has been corrected and the practice discontinued. The clients concerned have been notified accordingly.
We regret this occurrence and any difficulty this may have caused you.

This convinced the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, and should convince all Members that the Newfoundland Government does not require that people sign over their child tax credit before they can receive help.
I want to assure the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) and all the Members, that Newfoundland abides by the terms of the agreement signed with the Federal Government under the Public Assistance Act. I would like to add that the federal Government does not require that the Child Tax Credit be considered as income when determining eligibility to provincial social assistance, and all provinces exclude it totally in their social programs.


PUBLIC SERVICE-FEDERAL UNIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) PENSION NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the subject this evening is Public Service pensions and the promise made by this Government to maintain indexing for the pensions for which public servants have paid premiums and to which they are entitled.
The House will recall that I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), following his statement in the House, to table the so-called agreements he signed with the two largest unions, and I am referring to the Public Service Alliance and the Professional Institute. The President of the Treasury Board refused to do so at the time, saying that if we

May 14, 1985
Adjournment Debate
wanted information, we would have to see the unions, that everything was confidential, and that for the time being it was impossible to judge whether or not there was a good case for settling a problem that has been with us for a long time, that is, four or five very controversial points, including the indexing of pensions.
A few minutes ago, when I was listening to the other speech, at the same time-in the House it becomes second nature-I was reading over a speech I made on December 7, 1982 on the same subject, namely, Bill C-133, which I feel destroyed the indexing of Public Service pensions forever by setting the maximum allowable indexing at 6.5 per cent for one year and 5.5 per cent the following year.
Mr. Speaker, at the time I objected strenuously to this measure, but the fact is that the measure was adopted and I think this injustice should be dealt with very shortly. We were led to believe that an agreement had been reached, that public servants, through their union, had agreed to a remedy and had ratified an agreement they were to submit to management and which would subsequently be ratified by the public servants themselves.
Mr. Speaker, on May 10, after a series of misunderstandings and comments on both sides, both in the press and by spokesmen, by people who we assumed were knowledgeable, we had a rather serious problem, namely, that the unions were saying that what the Minister had read and their interpretation were not the same thing. With respect to pensions, the Minister had said: Unlimited indexing is finished. We are not going to talk about it anymore. We are now going to have an adjustment formula, which I will explain later on, and that is it. He also said: The right to strike was let go in favour of an agreement on other items that were more likely to meet with the general approval of union members. In other words, the right to strike was dropped. The union presidents denied they had dropped the right to strike. They also denied they had agreed to a non-indexed pension plan. In any case, all this created a wave of protest in the press and the media, and finally, last week on May 10, I asked the Minister: Listen, could you put an end to all these misunderstandings and table the agreements in the House? The President of the Treasury Board agreed to do so, and Hon. Members were able to see that quite obviously, the agreements were not what we expected from this Government, which was a settlement that would deal, after so many years, with a problem of major concern to us, and I am referring to pension indexing.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left, I would like to comment on this very important subject of pensions. In the memorandum of agreement signed, as far as I know, by Mr. Donegani for the Professional Institute and by Mr. D. Bean for the Public Service Alliance, it says very clearly:
Premium rates will be set at a level commensurate with the cost of current benefits under the base plan and with the ability to provide full protection against inflation if the economic assumptions on which these rates are based are realized.
Mr. Speaker, that means that the committee will be chaired by an individual allegedly independent of the minister, but who will be nonetheless responsible to him, and who will try to anticipate economic assumptions on inflation interest rates. The system will be based on those factors. How will they manage when, for years, we have been unable to do so with the assistance of so-called professional actuaries, I do not know.
Anyway, here is clause 4 of the agreement:
It is agreed that the present commitment to unlimited indexation will be repealed.
It is clear. For my part, it is the crux of this issue. The unlimited indexation is being repealed.
No. 6. The real level of protection against inflation provided to present and future pensioners will be based on the revenues of the pension fund and determined by the president of the Treasury Board on the recommendations of the management committee.
Whom will the advisory committee advise? The President of the Treasury Board, who will have the final word. This means, Mr. Speaker, that instead of saying: Listen, this thing has been going on for years, it is difficult to explain it, is quite complex and we will start over, both plans are put together. The indexation plan and the pension plan will be placed in a common fund which will be used to purchase long-term bonds bearing current interest and it will be jointly managed not only by the present public servants but also by the 30,000 pensioners who will have their say in the administration of their pension plan.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my brief comments this evening by stating that I feel that pension indexation should be maintained. We should be able to negotiate. The minister told us: yes, the door is open, come and see me. However, it is the minister who should act and invite the retired public servants to call at his office to negotiate an agreement which 1 hope will be approved by all and will put an end to a debate which has been going on for 17 years. It would also end the injustice of constantly questioning the future of our pensioners, their means of living, which they have dearly earned.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to respond to my Hon. colleague's remarks. I well remember his embarrassment during the six and five debate when he was completely abandoned by the Liberal Party and had to face his constituents. It was very embarrassing for the Member and I appreciate his efforts to try to regain lost ground.
Last Friday, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) indicated a willingness to meet with the union representatives and discuss, further, pension plan reforms and the shape of a new dental plan. I am sure the Hon. Member appreciates that this is one more indication of our willingness as a Government to sit down and consult. I am sure the Hon.
May 14, 1985

Member realizes, as his constituents must be telling him, that there is a much better tone and atmosphere with respect to employer-employee relations under the Conservative Government than that which existed under the previous Liberal Government. Although the Hon. Member cannot admit that because of Party solidarity, he would admit that privately.
On April 17, the President of the Treasury Board, in all good faith, outlined a series of understandings that had been reached, through bargaining on both sides, with the unions representing the Public Service employees. Understandings in principle are worked out and have to be taken back to both sides. They provide a framework within which the specifics can be worked out. They anticipate flexibility, compromise on the details, and most of all they reflect an appreciation that there must be continuing consultation.
Adjournment Debate
I am sure 1 speak for Members of all Parties when I say we regret the events of last week, but we as a Government do not for a minute abandon our hope for continuing constructive joint consultation on the issue of pension reform and a dental plan. Both of these subjects are of importance to present employees. The pension arrangements are naturally important to present employees and retired employees. We see a need to continue these consultations, and I regret that because of the time limit I do not have the opportunity to expand upon these remarks and reply further to my hon. colleague's question.
1 wish to thank the House for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion to adjourn is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 15, 1985