1985-12-10

Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), may I say that since today is the last day of supply the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply Bill. In view of our practices, may I have the consent of the House to distribute the supply Bill now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this opposition motion. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that I do so with a degree of sadness, a sadness brought on by the terrible economic plight with which those of us who live in Atlantic Canada are presently confronted. It is a serious situation, serious enough that it has caused various politicians of different political stripes to condemn the national Government for what I believe is an abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada.
Those of us who are elected to this Chamber bear a heavy responsibility, a responsibility which we must seriously accept. In accepting it seriously we must be able to stand in the Chamber and, I believe, stand for our regions. This is, in fact, the essence of Confederation. Canadians in the Atlantic provinces have grown to expect the best health care possible. They have grown to expect an opportunity to work in their own region. Yes, they believe it is their right under the Constitution and under previous Parliaments to be able to acquire a good education which does not leave them at a disadvantage when compared with other Canadians. To borrow a phrase from Aristotle:
If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons share in the Government to the utmost.
For all men and women to be truly equal there must be economic and social equality. It is with this particular thought in mind that, some years ago, my Party created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as a cornerstone of
national public policy to provide opportunities to those of us who live in the Atlantic region. There is no Member on either side of the House who would say that it was implemented without any flaws. There were flaws. However, it was a real attempt to eradicate, if you will, some of the economic disadvantages in the country.
The present policies of this national Government in Ottawa can best be described, as I have said before in the Chamber, as being akin to the trickle-down theory of economics. It is thought that somehow the economies of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa will create sufficient wealth that it will trickle down to the hinterland of the country. The fact is that that philosophy which pre-dated Mr. Diefenbaker did not work then and it will not work now.
I pose two questions for Hon. Members to consider. First, can and should the federal Government wash its hands of direct responsibility for job creation? Second, is community preservation or place prosperity the sole concern of local and provincial Governments? I think the answers to those two questions are obvious to those who have watched and witnessed the policies of this national Government. It does not believe that as a national Government it has the responsibility to protect community life throughout the country. Nor does the Government believe, because it has not put in place policies with regard to job creation in Atlantic Canada, that it should. In fact, it has been said by one of the centralist Premiers that the job strategy program of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is fundamentally flawed. The facts which I will share with Hon. Members in a moment will show that to be the case.
My sentiments as expressed here this morning are not of a partisan nature. The sentiments which I express are shared by the Premier of Newfoundland, the Premier of New Brunswick and, yes, not by the Premier of Nova Scotia but by his Minister of Development. Here is what he said a few days ago when addressing a group in Halifax:
Is there anyone up there who will speak for the hinterland ... who will give so much of a voice to regional problems and legitimate desires as was given in the heat of an election campaign?
That is a quotation from the Hon. Roland Thornhill, Minister of Development for the Province of Nova Scotia. He, too, recognizes that the disparities in the country are not closing. In fact, they are increasing in number and growing in length.
Atlantic Canadians feel adrift. They feel they are left to drift by this Government, which they have catalogued as an elitist and centralist Government which believes its constituency to be that of The financial Post 500. The facts bear this out. In Nova Scotia the rate of unemployment is stuck at 13.6 per cent. In New Brunswick 15 per cent of the workforce


Supply
cannot find jobs. In the past year Prince Edward Island has seen its level of unemployment rise over 3 percentage points to 16.3 per cent. In Newfoundland the rate is 19.5 per cent. However, that does not tell the whole story. Unemployment in western Newfoundland has shot up from the unacceptable level of 20.7 per cent a year ago to 22.9 per cent last month. Northern New Brunswick has been rewarded by the Tory Party with an increase in the jobless rate from 18.2 per cent to 19.1 per cent. My own constituency in the Island of Cape Breton has seen its unemployment level in 12 short months go up from 19.1 per cent to 24.6 per cent. There have been 4,000 people added to the unemployment roll in 12 months.
Has this been raised only by a Member of Parliament in the Opposition for the benefit of the House? What have other individuals said? I would like to quote a statement made in 1976:
It is beyond my comprehension how any government can restrain expenditures in an area of the country which has an unemployment rate of 13.9 per cent. It is in fact positively cruel and inhuman for any government to apply the restraint policy equally across this country as though every section of it is the same. It may be a policy of restraint that is quite active for provinces like Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan perhaps where there are now high unemployment figures, but it is not proper to apply it blindly to Newfoundland which has an unemployment rate of almost 14 per cent.
That statement was not made by myself. It was made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). But that Minister now has the audacity to sit in Cabinet in this Government and watch the unemployment rate in his own province go from 14 per cent up to in excess of 20 per cent.
We saw this type of attitude in the previous Government of 1979 and we saw this attitude prior to 1968. We know what the Canadian people in Atlantic Canada did to that Government when it came to re-election. I ask sincerely, Mr. Speaker, where is the federal representation in the Cabinet of the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


Mr. Nunziata:: There isn't any.


David Charles Dingwall: Are they asleep or are they grossly negligent?


John V. Nunziata: Both.


David Charles Dingwall: I have to say with conviction, with sincerity, and with the facts as evidence thus far, that the case is obvious. The Government is grossly negligent, insensitive and it has abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada.
I would like to talk about transfer payments for a moment, if I may. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a decision to cut $2 billion from transfer payments. He used weasel words at the First Ministers' conference, but it was not good enough. The Premier of New Brunswick zeroed in on the effects these cuts in transfer payments would have on the Atlantic region, and they will affect hospital care and postsecondary education. For Members of Parliament to suggest otherwise, is wrong. It is wrong, in fact, because it will be devastating to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada. The Finance Minister of New Brunwsick denounced the unilateral
decision of the Minister of Finance by saying: "I think we will come to a time when we realize that the honeymoon is over. Federal-provincial relations have to be on the basis of fairness and equity". Yet the Minister of Finance, aided and abetted by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, unilaterally expedited cut-backs in transfer payments.
The Premier of Ontario at the First Ministers' conference said: "These cuts which were announced without consultation, speeded up by a year without discussion, will weaken our country in the very areas where we must martial our greatest strengths". When the Minister of Finance sat in opposition, he condemned the six and five program as predatory federalism. All of a sudden we find it is not a short-term measure which we implemented some years ago, it is a fact. It is a fact with which the provinces are going to have to live until the end of the decade.
Then there is the commitment made by the Prime Minister on July 26 of 1984 when he said, and I quote:
A PC Government is committed to respect the federal obligation to fund provincial health care through Established Programs Financing, and make additional funds available to the provinces on a cost shared basis for the establishment or enrichment of programs being most likely to improve the general level of health and limit long-term costs. This determination to be made following a national conference of Health Ministers and health care professionals.
That is what our Prime Minister said in July of 1984. He was committed then but he is not committed now. When I say that this Government has abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada, the evidence is clear and unequivocal.
The equalization payments do not touch each and every province in the same way. We in Atlantic Canada, because of our history, our geography and our small population base, have had to depend upon the federal Government to provide the necessary moneys for the necessity of life. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing immoral about providing Canadians in that particular region with the opportunity to have the basic services of life, just as the federal Government has provided, through the John A. Macdonald policy, tariffs and regulations for central Canada. Government after government has provided the Auto Pact for central Canada. The national Government has provided billions upon billions of dollars for the western farmers. All of this is good, Mr. Speaker, and ought not to be denounced, but the Atlantic provinces will feel the cut-backs in transfer payments the most. As parliamentarians we mistakenly think that only provincial Governments will be affected. In fact, we are cutting back on services to people who live in Halifax and to people who reside in Moncton, Shediac, Corner Brook, and Summerside, P.E.I., because their municipalities will have to cut back.
[DOT] (U20)
Today on the front page of The Chronicle Herald it says: "Municipalities hope to head off 'severe squeeze' ", The President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that he fears municipalities will be the ultimate financial losers as Ottawa goes ahead with plans to cut the level of transfer payments to the provinces beginning early next year.


In a weak economic region like Atlantic Canada the effect of the national Government unilaterally terminating moneys to the citizens will be real, obvious, and immediate. There is no fairness, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Constitution says under Section 36. Members opposite who were here for the debate on the Constitution will recall what that section says. It talks about equal opportunity for all Canadians, regardless in which region of the country they live. I am ashamed that the national Government is pursuing that route. I am ashamed of the Government Members of Parliament and, from my perspective of, the weakest federal cabinet representation from Atlantic Canada in the history of Canada.
The Government may want to laugh and try to push aside the effect of the role of the national Government, whether in terms of transfer payments or regional economic development. However, I will read a few lines to give Hon. Members a better appreciation. This is what they say:
The federal Government's presence in the region, along with transfer payments, have also contributed substantially to closing the gap with the national average on a number of fronts in the provision of public services. For example, between 1962 and 1979 the Atlantic provinces moved considerably closer to the national average in health and education expenditures. Newfoundland, for example, now has a per capita education expenditure level within 7 percentage points of the national average. In the health field, its per capita spending moved from 46 per cent of the national average to 81 per cent in the same period.
If those are not clear, unequivocal facts with regard to the importance of transfer payments to the Canadian mosaic, I do not know what is.
It does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. With regard to transportation, Bill C-75 singles out Atlantic Canadians to bear the brunt of cost increases. What about the federal Department of Regional Industrial Expansion? There was a $450 million cut in that Department, and now there is another $2 billion cut-back by the national Government. Where is the equity and fairness? There is no fairness. That is clear and obvious. I could go on with program after program. Housing has been absolutely devastated.
Let me conclude by asking what the Government has done. I opened my remarks by referring to the trickle-down theory of economic for Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. The Government has lived up to that. It provided a $500,000 capital gains tax for the wealthy in the country. It provided a $2 billion bonanza for the multinational oil companies. Because of its incompetence, it has provided a $1 billion bonanza for our banks. The Government is going to build a $500 million ship. That, in my view, is a totally wasteful expenditure. The Government has increased taxes for low and middle income Canadians who will be paying an additional $1,500 by 1990. The Government tried but failed, because of the persistence of this Party, to cut the pensions of our senior citizens.
The motion is clear and unequivocal. The facts are clear and unequivocal. The action and lack of action by the Government is clear to the people of Atlantic Canada. The Government has abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada and has not demonstrated any political will to create the jobs and economic opportunities that Canadians have a right to expect.
Supply


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment. I must congratulate the hon. gentleman on his speech and on his motion, which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of the political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
While the Hon. Member was speaking I was thinking about the gross negligence to which he referred. I was informed this morning that the Government of Newfoundland has made representation to the federal Government that it would pay for the mothballing of the Come-by-Chance oil refinery. In a private communication to the federal Government, the Government of Newfoundland said that, if required, the people of Newfoundland will pay the entire cost to the Government of Canada, through Petro-Canada, to mothball that refinery to prevent a contract being awarded by Petro-Canada to scrap it.
The hon. gentleman mentioned the signing of agreements. Under the Atlantic Accord we have only until February 11 to get industrial capacity in place because that is the trigger date for that agreement. We are supposed to see a Bill in the House but we have not seen it or any notice of it. Just imagine the Newfoundland Government having to suggest that it will use the money of Newfoundland taxpayers to mothball a refinery! Petro-Canada has informed the Minister that it does not want to do that but wants to scrap the refinery. In the same proposition communicated privately to the federal Government yesterday the Government of Newfoundland said that it would be willing to buy the refinery if all else fails.
This certainly drives home the point of gross negligence which the Hon. Member made. He said that there has been no responsibility shown by the Government and that there has been a lack of attention. As the hon. gentleman asked, where is the federal representation? Will the Hon. Member tell us where the federal representation is that we are supposed to have from Atlantic Canada?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief comment and then try to answer the Hon. Member's question. He must understand that the national Government is not putting forward its policies by accident, but rather by design. It is very clear what those policies are.
The Government wants the people of Atlantic Canada to migrate out because this is a centralist, elitist Government. The Government wants several communities in the country to form what it believes to be the new Canadian mosaic. People in Newfoundland do not really count as far as the Government is concerned. People in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I. do not count because such are the social policies of the Government. If you cannot get a job in Atlantic Canada in the private sector, you go to Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. The policy thrust is to have the people migrate out, and this was designed purposely rather than by accident. Unfortunately, those so-called representatives from Atlantic Canada, whether they be back-bench MPs with very little to say about economic policy, or cabinet Ministers, are not prepared to stand up for our region.


Supply
The representation that I condemn has also been condemned by the Nova Scotia Minister of Development, a Tory Minister. He has castigated his federal MPs for not doing their jobs. It could not be any clearer than what came from the First Ministers' conference, that is, that nothing for the region was recommended by those Members in either the November, 1984 statement or the May 23 Budget. There is no representation, none whatsoever, just bodies.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member why he was not making these representations when he was sitting on the Government side of the House in the presence of two former Premiers from Atlantic Canada and two in the other place. These representations were not made at that time when there should have been competent representation from those Members on that side when they were sitting here. Why did he not mention in his remarks this morning that the payments to various funds benefiting Atlantic Canada were increased in the Budget by $500 million when compared to the Budget presented at the time he sat on the Government side of the House, supported by, we presume, four former Premiers of Atlantic Canada?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might want to review some press clippings and speeches I have made with regard to development in Atlantic Canada.


Fred Alward McCain: When you were in Government.


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps he would avail himself of that opportunity if he would like to take the time. As well, I was on the record very clearly when we brought in legislation regarding changes to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. I said very clearly, like my colleague from Egmont, that those changes ought to be reviewed on a 12-month basis, and if it is not working, it should be scrapped. That is what we said when we were in the Government. If there were mistakes made in the past to which the Hon. Member has alluded, then for God's sake-


Fred Alward McCain: You made them.


David Charles Dingwall: -do not make the same mistakes. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He talks about increments in transfer payments.


Fred Alward McCain: Half a billion.


David Charles Dingwall: Half a billion. That is not going to suit your province, which will have a $17 million cut-back in transfer payments. It will not suit the Province of Nova Scotia, which will have to resort to user-fees in its hospitals and will have to jack up tuition fees in its universities, fees which are already the highest in Canada. It is painfully obvious from the question coming from the Hon. Member that there is no representation on the federal side. That is very clear from the question he raises and from its tone.


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. It is difficult to sit here and listen to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) make such broadbrush statements on Atlantic Canada.


David Charles Dingwall: They are the facts.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Broad-brush statements. It is very difficult to do so without making reference to my own particular riding. That Member is the spokesman for a Liberal Government which wanted to close Canadian Forces Base Chatham. However, it was this Government, of which I am a member, that saved that base and some 350 jobs. Had that base been closed there would have been a decrease in the population of my riding of some 3,000 people.
He also talks about inaction on the part of this Government of 15 months while overlooking the inaction of his Government, certainly in my riding, for the past 16 years. Over the last 12 months housing starts in my riding have been up 187 per cent. That was unknown in the past 16 years. I could go on and on but I know you want to give the Hon. Member time for rebuttal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Very short rebuttal, please.


David Charles Dingwall: I guess it is fitting that that Hon. Member at least rises in his place and poses a question.


Mr. Boudria:: For the first time.


David Charles Dingwall: Not necessarily the first time, probably the second. However, it is good to have him raise a question. He talks about his constituency but fails to mention it is his Government which refuses to act on the proposal we put forward regarding Renous, New Brunswick. However, I am not suggesting he would like to mislead the House in the broadside he just delivered. It is also particularly fitting for this Member to have asked a question because he wanted to deindex family allowances. It was his Party who was in favour of deindexing senior citizens' pensions. However, is this Hon. Member now standing in his place and saying that the Premier of New Brunswick is wrong when he says the federal Government has cut back on regional economic development and is cutting back on transfer payments? Is that what the Hon. Member is trying to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked forward to participating in this debate on the motion put forward by my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Don Boudria: A very distinguished colleague.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, a very distinguished and articulate colleague. He has certainly pointed out the very severe situation in Atlantic Canada under this Government.
Consideration of this motion condemning the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada is certainly very appropriate given the situation today and what we have seen in the last few months. We in Atlantic Canada of course are fearful of what this Government holds in store for our region. 1 know some of my Atlantic colleagues on the other side also share our concern because they, too, go back to their ridings and regions on the weekends and I am sure their constituents are telling them exactly what they are telling us.
We in Atlantic Canada are facing a desperate situation. We come from a region which is very rich in history, culture and tradition. We have been proud, of course, of our accomplishments over the last number of years. We are equally proud of our way of life. We are very proud people when it comes to earning a living from the land and the sea. However, we who live in Atlantic Canada have found things extremely difficult in this last year or so. Conservative policies and priorities are not designed to foster prosperity in the Maritime provinces.
We see this Government reacting and responding to the needs of big business. Our area of the country does not have big businesses such as we see in Toronto, Montreal and some of the western provinces. Most of the businesses in our area employ from 3 to a maximum of 200 people, although very few businesses employ 200 people.
The Government's policies do not respect our heritage and life-style. As the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) stated, the Government's policies are likely to shrink our communities and our population. In my opinion, its policies will certainly not enrich our communities.
What does one do if one cannot find a job in one's home town or home province? I assume the Government is telling the young men and young women of this country that they should find a job elsewhere, in Ontario or out West. We went through that syndrome in the 1940s and 1950s. I was one of those who experienced it. I had to leave home at 16 years of age and hitch-hike to Toronto in order to find a job because there were no jobs in my region of my province. If I was able to find a job it was only for $2 a day and I have the documentation to prove it. Furthermore, I was probably more fortunate than many others because I was single male.
While we are obviously not working for $2 a day any more, wages have not improved very much in Atlantic Canada since then. It is not so much a question of money as the fact that there is no way to earn a living.
The private sector in Atlantic Canada is not a dominant force as it is in the rest of Canada. The Government must recognize this fact because it also applies to areas like northern Ontario and parts of the Province of Quebec. Not all of us live in the Mecca of the golden triangle in this country. My friend opposite, the chairman of the Quebec caucus, is nodding his
Supply
head in approval because he understands what I am trying to
say.
Neither was the Province of Alberta always prosperous. I remember working in northern Alberta for very little money in the 1960s. However, at least I could find a job there. That is not the situation today.
As the Member of Parliament for Egmont, I receive many letters from my constituents and meet literally hundreds of people who come to my office looking for jobs. The Government's job creation strategy is not accomplishing what we want in Atlantic Canada. Let me read a letter that I received on November 16 from one of my constituents. It states:
Dear Mr. Henderson,
I am writing you concerning the unemployment problem in our district. I have been unemployed for one year. My U.l. benefits are running out at the end of the month.
I have been looking for work for one year and have not had any results. Most of the feedback I have received is that most of the projects are only for those receiving social assistance and therefore I am not available for work.
This bothers me very much as I am very willing to work and I cannot. I would like to know how you feel about this serious problem in our West Prince district as well as our country, and what else can I do?
I would appreciate if you would answer my letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda Ellis.
That letter is from Oleary, P.E.I.
That is one example of what is happening in my region. I am glad to see my colleague from the opposite side, the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns), in the House. If we wants to admit it, I am sure he would agree that the situation is the same in his riding. The tobacco farmers were here yesterday demonstrating their plight. The farmers in my province are selling potatoes for 2 cents a pound, which is 3 cents to 3.5 cents a pound below the cost of production.
This weekend I witnessed something which I have never seen in my life. A farmer in my area went to a small general grocery store to deliver potatoes. He took in a 50 pound bag of potatoes for which the grocer paid him $1.20. That is 2 cents a pound, plus 20 cents for the paper bag bearing the name "Product of P.E.I.". That farmer was accompanied by his 9 year old son, who wanted a couple of chocolate bars at the store. The farmer bought the chocolate bars for his son and it cost him $1.20. I believe that puts the situation faced by farmers in this country and in my province into perspective.
The Government must do something about this. We are not here to act on a partisan basis because we must do the very best we can for the people who need the most help. We must point out to the Government that it is not addressing the real issues. It does not understand the plight of the farmer in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It does not understand the employment situation.
Last month unemployment in my province went up two points, from 13.3 per cent to 15.3 per cent. While that is a provincial unemployment rate, I guarantee that the unemployment rate in my riding and in the riding of the Hon. Member


Supply
for Cardigan is 30 per cent. There are communities in my riding consisting of 80 or 90 people not one of whom is working. Thankfully, most of them are receiving unemployment insurance. However, the Government is conducting a witch-hunt into the unemployment insurance program. It has a committee that is travelling to Atlantic Canada to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Premier of New Brunswick made a statement to that committee and pointed out very clearly what the impact of tampering with UIC regulations would be on Atlantic Canada. The only alternative to UIC in Atlantic Canada would be outright welfare.
What is the purpose behind the Government's policy? I am pleased that two cabinet Ministers from Atlantic Canada are in the House today to listen to our opinions. Since they are in a position of power with the Government, I hope they will attempt to persuade Treasury Board and their cabinet colleagues that we are correct in saying that there is a serious situation in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. They are the representatives of Atlantic Canada in a position of power. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) was a former cabinet Minister in the New Brunswick Government. He has provincial experience, as I have. He understands the difficulty provincial Governments have when the federal Government tries to cut back on transfer payments. I would like to hear the Minister tell me and tell this House today whether the cut-backs in transfer payments are going to hurt New Brusnwick, as his former Premier has indicated. I challenge him to do so. If he does not say it will hurt, he is not telling the truth, or the Premier of New Brunwisck is not telling the truth. I believe what the Premier of New Brunswick is saying is correct.
I know the Minister of State for Forestry will rise in his place today and state unequivocally that the proposed reduction in transfer payments is nothing more than shifting the tax burden from the federal Government to the provincial Governments and ultimately to the taxpayers of Atlantic Canada who will have to pay more. That is the bottom line. It does not matter to whom you have to pay taxes, it is the amount you have to pay that counts. If the federal Government is not meeting its commitments to the provinces and it is not meeting its commitments through the provinces to the municipalities, then the services Atlantic Canadians receive will have to be taxed, either transferred from the federal Government to the provincial Government or to the municipalities. That is what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) elaborately pointed out earlier.
I come now to cut-backs. In my province, living on an island similar to that of Newfoundland, we have the problem of transportation. We cannot get into our automobiles and drive from Halifax to Vancouver without paying a toll.
It is bad enough for the Government to increase ferry rates to Prince Edward Island, which in turn increases costs in agriculture, fishing and tourism, but these increases hit the ordinary Prince Edward Islander who wants to be part, and is
part, of this country. In my opinion, he is discriminated against because that person from Prince Edward Island has to pay to go to Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick or to Pictou, Nova Scotia. Not only are the costs increasing rapidly but the service is deteriorating.
The Government, instead of doing something, changes the name of a Department or of a Crown corporation to make it look as though it were the Government's. CN Marine is now going to be Marine Atlantic, or something like that. It is the same thing. Changing the name will not make any difference. The same charges and the same deterioration in service will occur.
CN Marine has laid off 40 employees just recently. We have cut-backs everywhere we look, a job here and a job there in the Public Service. Atlantic Canadians can no longer stand that. The Government has to get wise, and the two cabinet Ministers sitting over there have to be the ones to make the Government listen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: They are the ones, Mr. Speaker. We have only one economic portfolio in Atlantic Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Half of one.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, half of one, because it is the Minister of State for Forestry who has a budget under the Minister of Agriculture. I suppose that in some way you cannot really say we do not have at least one economic portfolio.
Here is an area about which something should be done by this Government. Someone has to be around in the corridors of power in order to point out these things clearly and directly to the new Government. It is obvious that the people we face here every day in the few front benches along with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) do not understand what we are trying to get across. They do not understand the plight of the fishermen in Newfoundland, or else they would have put another $100 million into the small craft harbours instead of cutting the fishery budget. If the Government had understood, it would not have abused user fees on agricultural products nor would it have increased gasoline prices and ferry rates or allowed a deterioration in service brought about by the decrease in crossings. The Government should understand what real Atlantic Canadians are thinking and saying.
I can tell you there will be a judgment day, Mr. Speaker, for those Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada on the Government side, and it may come a lot quicker than they think. I can tell you that the people in Cape Breton, the people in Nova Scotia, including Halifax, and the people of New Brunswick are telling me that they are embarrassed by the kind of representation they are getting here in Ottawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


George Roland Henderson: I could go on, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I know, but we now have questions and comments.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) who is the only Member from Prince Edward Island representing Prince Edward Island's interests in this Parliament. Would the Hon. Member avail himself of the opportunity to explain the problem of potato inspection fees? Perhaps he could take a few minutes of our time because it is an important issue.
We have heard in this House from the Member on previous occasions that the added cost of potato inspection fees on Prince Edward Island, in view of the present economic circumstances of that industry, is devastating for Prince Edward Island's potato farmers.
While the Hon. Member is on his feet, would he indicate to the House whether this issue of potato inspection fees is a partisan issue? Or does it transcend Party politics? For instance, does the Premier of Prince Edward Island agree with the principle of potato inspection fees? Would the Hon. Member care to elaborate on those two items?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and remark. First, I must say that the Premier of Prince Edward Island and his Minister of Agriculture have been on record as opposing user fees or inspection fees for potatoes. Indeed, the Legislature of the Province of Prince Edward Island was unanimously opposed to such inspection fees. I cannot however say on a number of issues whether the Province of Prince Edward Island was against some of the other user fees that have been implemented by the Government over the last year or year and a half. Politicians there are the same as we are. Politicians represent people and they should be getting the message.
As far as the provincial Government of Prince Edward Island is concerned, it got a clear message in the recent by-election. People are not happy with its performance inasmuch as two Members from the Liberal Party were elected to represent them. I am not sure whether it was totally as a result of inaction by the Province of Prince Edward Island, or whether it was due to some of the penalties which the federal Government placed on the backs of Prince Edward Islanders. I suspect quite strongly-and this is certainly what the people are telling the provincial Government and me-that the federal Government in Ottawa, which happens to be of the same tripe as that provincial Government, is not listening to Prince Edward Islanders. They certainly must be getting the message.


Mr. Merrithew:: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to meet the challenge of those people who indicated that I would not get to my feet to speak on this particular debate. I certainly welcome the opportunity to correct some of the impressions which have been left in the House. I listened to the sweeping-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister knows that this is the period for questions and comments. There are still five minutes or six minutes remaining for questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech. I hope he is not entering into debate at this time.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: No, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to make some comments. I have listened to the sweeping generalizations and the condemnations. One might ask the question: Where were they when their Party was in power in the House? I was on the receiving end of the rancour, hatred and antagonism shown by the previous Government toward all provinces in Canada. I sat through many meetings and I watched the way in which that Government treated the provincial Governments.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of signing, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), a $30 million industrial development agreement. In case those Liberal Members do not think that this is very much, the daily newspaper today in New Brunswick indicated that it was $30 million for the New Brunswick industry.
I happened to be the Minister of Commerce and Development when the previous agreement ran out-not last year, not the year before, nor the year before that, but in 1980. As hard as we tried to get the previous Government to sign a new agreement, it refused to do so.


Mr. Mayer:: Shame on them.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) indicated that he was in favour of small business. We in New Brunswick know what small business is all about. We developed the best small industry financial assistance program in Canada. In 1980, the previous Government let it lapse and said: "If you don't like it, lump it". The poor Province of New Brunswick had to pick up the cost of that industrial development program.
Hon. Members have referred to unemployment this morning. Between 1980 and 1984, there was not one net job increase in Atlantic Canada, certainly not in the Province of New Brunswick. At least, in the past year, we have created
14,000	new jobs in the Province of New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Perhaps the Hon. Member should have it drawn to his attention, as was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine), that Saint John had one of the highest rate of new housing starts in Canada this year.
I do not know how the Liberal Party, that opposition Party, can have the audacity and gall to talk about forestry when it has not had the decency to ask even one question of the Minister of State for Forestry in the House in the past 15 months. When we assumed power 15 months ago, the previous Government had in place about a quarter of a billion dollars in forestry agreements. We now have $1,057 million worth of agreements with the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
9318


Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Minister has completed his comments, does he have a question?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I would like them to comment upon the unemployment figures. Have they read the Statistics Canada figures which were released on Friday, the figures indicating that unemployment was down in New Brunswick? Perhaps the Hon. Member for Egmont could respond to that.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, that is fine. Just one moment, please. I have extended the time by a few minutes for the Hon. Member because of the Minister's comments. I would like to hear every Member from that particular area comment and ask questions, but there are only so many minutes allowed for each Hon. Member.


An Hon. Member:: That would be fine, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not at this moment.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to respond to those comments. I am glad that I was able to get the Minister to his feet, because we have not heard a thing from him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: As far as asking him a question is concerned, he is really only in charge of the forestry service. My gosh, he is a glorified bureaucrat with a chauffeur; that is all he is.
The Minister referred to the unemployment figures. He should read the latest statistics, which indicate that in new Brunswick unemployment is up and that in Prince Edward Island it is up by two percentage points. Does the Minister read what is going on? What about the CNR lay-offs in the Moncton ships? What is happening there? Is the Minister saying anything about that? His colleagues are trying to get something going. Why is he not fighting the battle for them? He is asleep at the wheel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. On debate, the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes).


George Roland Henderson: While the Minister is running around cutting ribbons, I would like him to comment upon the frigate program in Saint John.


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


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we started the debate this morning, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) stood, and the Conservatives were asleep at the switch. The Hon. Member from Charlottetown was not on his feet; he was sitting on his fanny. I think the Chair should recognize someone in this Party-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member will be recognized following the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes).


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to enter into this debate.


John V. Nunziata: It is about time.


Stewart Donald McInnes: This is the first opportunity. I am also delighted to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). He is the first Minister responsible for forestry in the Government of Canada in 20 years in recognition of the fact that forestry is the number one industry and a major employer in Canada. I cannot understand where our friends opposite were when they were in a position to appoint a Minister responsible for forestry.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: It was neglected.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Yes, it was a resource which was neglected for far too long.


Mr. Tobin:: He is a Minister of State who works for John Wise.


David Charles Dingwall: He is a phantom; he is here but he is not all there.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Our Government is ensuring that this very valuable resource will receive the detailed attention which it deserves.


John V. Nunziata: The lights are on but nobody is home.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If there are questions and comments, Hon. Members can wait until after the Minister has finished.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the interest of keeping the record straight-and we want to listen carefully to what the Minister is saying-would he please refer to the Minister by his proper title, which is Minister of State reporting to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that is a point of order, but go ahead.


Stewart Donald McInnes: I must confess, at the outset, that I will not be able to shout as loudly as my friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond. However, I hope the quality of my remarks will testify to the attitude and performance of the Government of the last 14 years, relative to the motion before the House.
I am very pleased to note that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has finally come out of the bottle. It is as though he has been encapsulated for the period of time he has been sitting in Parliament. Let the record show that he was a Parliamentary Secretary in the previous Government. I made inquiries as to the volume and effectiveness of any arguments which he advanced. Did he advance


those particular suggestions to his colleagues when they had the opportunity to act?


Brian Vincent Tobin: All the time.


Stewart Donald McInnes: I can only conclude that that was not the case because the evidence indicates that the Hon. Member and his colleagues indeed failed Atlantic Canada. Albeit there were two temporary interruptions, we are left with the result of 23 years of mismanagement, neglect and abdication of responsibility by those who had the opportunity to do something.
The way our friends used to deal with the problems in Atlantic Canada was pretty much the way they dealt with problems in the rest of Canada. That is what the people of Canada rejected in 1984. The people said that they had had enough.
In the olden days, when we were nearing election time our friends would say that they would initiate programs to help Canadians and Atlantic Canadians. What did they do? They threw some money here, they threw some money there, they painted pretty pictures and they built some buildings. However, what did they do for the long-term viability of Atlantic Canada? Nothing, Mr. Speaker. The situation today is that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are 80 per cent dependent on Government revenues. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are 90 per cent dependent on government revenues. For 23 years, there was an erosion of the creativity, willingness, capital and dedication required to make Atlantic Canada a full partner in Confederation. This was not always so.
At the time of Confederation, as the Minister of State for Forestry will know, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were two of the wealthiest provinces in Canada. Nova Scotia was the fourth largest trading partner in all of the world. What has happened since that time? There has been an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Government. There has been an erosion in the climate necessary to encourage private capital in Atlantic Canada, private capital that would create jobs and make manufacturing industries available in order to sustain long-term growth.
In 1984, the new Government decided that the ad hoc policies of our friends had obviously not done the job. In 1983-84, the federal Government awarded 29 federal grants to the Province of Nova Scotia. I would like to tell the House of the way those grants were administered in Nova Scotia. Of those 29 grants, 23 were given to the Cape Breton riding represented by the then Deputy Prime Minister. Every single one of those 23 grants went to the particular town in which he resided.
What was the reaction of the people of Canada to that? They said: "Thank you very much, we appreciated your effort, but you have done nothing for us. What have we got to show for it? What manufacturing industries do we have which will produce jobs for the long term? What infrastructure have you created which will minimize the everlasting, long-term, predicted unemployment rate to which we have been subjected?"
Supply
The people asked where the grants were for Yarmouth, Bridgewater, Guysborough and Amherst. There were none. They all went to the riding of the then Deputy Prime Minister, obviously to no avail.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's untrue.


Stewart Donald McInnes: I forgot. The riding of my friend, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton East Richmond, also received two of the 29 grants, and the other four were given to other parts of the province.
My friend is berating this Government because in 14 months it has not waved the magic wand and created 100 per cent employment. That is not our objective. The Government could create many more jobs overnight by throwing away money for three-week, six-week and 12-week projects as did the former Government. However, at the end of those periods of time to which those particular programs were directed, the people would be back on the dole. That is the reason for the captivity to subsidies which forms part of Atlantic Canada.
I would emphasize that Atlanticc Canada is absolutely dependent on Government revenues. Because of that, the people of Canada said: "No more, you have to try something else". Indeed, that is what this Government has undertaken. The objective statistics are there to show that the proof is in the pudding.
Interest rates are down 3 per cent. Investment intentions are up by 22 per cent and in Atlantic Canada they are up by 14 per cent. The unemployment rate is down by 1 per cent and the employment rate is up by 3 per cent. When there are 53 per cent more housing starts this year than last, when retail purchases are up by 27 per cent and when small businesses in Nova Scotia indicate that they are going to make 24 per cent more capital expenditures than they did last year and create 42 per cent more jobs in the next year, that is an indication that the people have adopted the policies of the Government, policies on which they can rely because they know that they will not be changed in the middle of the game. The people recognize that we are creating a climate of confidence in order to induce investors, not only from the Atlantic provinces but from all over, to invest in Canada.
We in the Atlantic provinces recognize that some of our very best employers and indeed some of our finest corporate citizens are from other lands. In Nova Scotia, Michelin is the largest employer. Nova Scotia Forest Industries and Bowater Mersey are good corporate citizens in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick, there is St. Anne-Nackawic, the pulp mill, and in Prince Edward Island there is Usen Fisheries Ltd. These are just a few examples of the employment records of some of our fine corporate citizens. There have been too few citizens of that kind from foreign lands investing in Canada, and more particularly in Atlantic Canada, in the past number of years. This has been because of the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
We in Atlantic Canada welcome investors from other lands. Because we have done away with the F1RA and NEP legislation, which was inimical to the wellbeing of our area, we can


Supply
recognize that we have had large and very substantial increases in inquiries into the possibilities which exist in the Atlantic provinces. We recognize that there are no quick fixes to 23 years of Liberal mismanagement.
We recognize that in order to ensure our long-term credibility and viability, a new approach is required. That is what we have undertaken to do. The budget measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last May as well as the amendments and comments he has made from time to time indicate that the entrepreneurial spirit will be the driving force in Canada and particularly in Atlantic Canada. Small business will be encouraged by the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption.
It comes to mind very quickly that there was a notable deficiency in the remarks made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. He spoke about all of Atlantic Canada but he neglected to mention one geographical location. I refer to his own riding and the constituencies in the area of Cape Breton. There we have undertaken the most daring initiatives which have ever been undertaken by any Government in Canada to encourage industry to invest. The tax havens and the incentives which have been put in place there have compelled and attracted more inquiries for one geographical area in six months with regard to investment possibilities and employment opportunities than in any other area of Canada. Indeed, some of the results have already been shown. We are not very happy with what has occurred in that area today. It takes a long time for a company to determine what possibilities are available, what financing is available and what the strength of the labour force is.
People always ask the question: "What about the people?" What this Government is saying is that we believe in people. Canada is not just woods, forests and mountains; it is all of that, and we are blessed with those resources. However, Canada is people. My colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry, other Atlantic Ministers, all our colleagues and I myself can testify and say to the House that we believe in equality in capability and the entrepreneurial spirit of Atlantic Canadians. We know that they can take the opportunities which we are presenting to them and that they will capitalize on them over the long term to the benefit of all Atlantic Canada.
The Hon. Member opposite has come out of the bottle after seven years in the House on behalf of Atlantic Canada, after having sat on this side and after having failed to do something when he was in an ostensible position of influence. We say to the House that we recognize that, given the opportunity, Atlantic Canadians can respond. We will reduce their dependency from 80 per cent and 90 per cent to something approximating the national average. It is a matter of the entitlement of Atlantic Canada to participing fully in Confederation on an equal level. I am not speaking of doing this through subsidies, unemployment insurance or welfare. Atlantic Canadians are proud. They recognize that they have the brains, and have
been obliged to export them because there has been a lack of incentives. There has not been the opportunity to create possibilities in Atlantic Canada because the former Government and those Hon. Members opposite who have spoken this morning failed to respond when the need was so apparent.
I would now like to deal more particularly with what has happened in some of the Atlantic provinces. I have spoken of the general situation. However, in order to ensure that the entrepreneurial spirit and private sector employment will take place, we have fertilized the climate in these particular provinces and we have put in place certain programs. Obviously, there will be a tremendous increase in employment opportunities in Newfoundland in terms of the offshore. There will be opportunities in Nova Scotia as a result of the new frontier policies which were recently announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). The Government of Newfoundland almost seceded from Confederation when it endeavoured time after time and year after year to secure an agreement with the federal Government relative to the resources which so rightly belong to it. In less than one year in office this Government consummated an agreement to ensure that the resources and the employment opportunities will stay with Newfoundland. We have said: "It is yours". Plans are now under way to fulfil that mission.
In addition to that, a $300 million development fund has been given to the Province of Newfoundland in order to enhance its employment opportunities and in order to bring its oil and gas on shore. In addition, in Newfoundland, there was an injection of $93 million into Fishery Products International for the purpose of putting it on a competitive basis and ensuring its long-term viability. That was a grant of funds by this Government to a company in a province which is deserving. Given the five-year plan which was before us, we have been enassured that it will be able to compete on a national and international level and that the subsidies which have been given to it year after year will be reduced and new wealth will be created in the province. Indeed, it will be the mission in the long-term objective of Newfoundlanders and, indeed, of all Atlantic Canadians, to pay more taxes. They want to pay income tax because that means they are enjoying prosperity. That is the opportunity we wish to give them.
Only this week in Cape Breton my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), announced a new Cape Breton Enterprise Development Agency. We have given a tax holiday and tax incentives to Cape Breton, but in order to ensure that opportunities are promulgated and made known to all Canadians and other investors from other lands, this particular agency has been given a mandate of $25 million to ensure that the world knows of the possibilities for this particular area. Up to this time there has been some difficulty in knowing what was available by way of Government programs because such a mish-mash of relief and assistance had been advanced over the past few years that no one really knew what was available at any particular time to any particular investor. Thus, one-stop shopping has been created by the establishment of this particular agency.


I now wish to talk about small business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but his time has expired. We are now into the time for questions and comments. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). Will Hon. Members please govern themselves accordingly. The Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) has the floor.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly nice to hear the truth from the Hon. Minister from Halifax instead of the sweeping generalizations of questionable fact as put forward by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I appreciate the remarks which the Minister has made in regard to the labour force and the increasing number of people working in Atlantic Canada as opposed to the suggestions made by the Hon. Member opposite with respect to migration from eastern Canada. I am not surprised that he speaks in terms of migration and in terms of abandonment, because no one in this House knows more about abandonment than the Hon. Member's Party. That was clearly demonstrated, of course, not so much in Atlantic Canada, but in western Canada over the last few years of the Hon. Member's Government when it abandoned the people of western Canada and forced them to move to places such as Saudi Arabia, South America and so on.
I wish to make the point that the former Government certainly abandoned many Canadians. I think the Minister may agree with me when 1 say that our Government has continued to encourage ecnomic development, job creation and the promotion of the general well-being of the people of Atlantic Canada. In fact, if we look at a few statistics-and I hate to bore the House with statistics-we find they speak for themselves. In July of this year the labour force in Prince Edward Island totalled 64,000. It was at an all-time high. It was up by 3,000 persons over the previous year. In the month before, it was up by 3,000 over the previous year as well. In May, it was up by 5,000 over the previous year. It was up by
4,000	in April, 5,000 in March, 4,000 in February and 3,000 in January. So, indeed, there has not been an outright migration. I wonder if the Minister can confirm that that same kind of economic resurgence is occurring in other areas in Atlantic Canada?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. I want to say that the positive economic statistics which were spoken about by my friend can be partly attributed to some of the following programs. Under the Small Business Loans Act, this Government has awarded 3,186 loans to various firms in the four Atlantic provinces, for a total amount in excess of $98 million. Under the Industrial and Regional Development Program, there have ben 209 grants which total in excess of $88 million. Under the ERDA agreements, there have been nine agree-
Supply
ments in Newfoundland for a total of $235 million. In Prince Edward Island, there have been 12 agreements for a total of $103 million in federal contributions. In Nova Scotia, there have been eight agreements for a total of $140 million, in New Brunswick, there have been eight agreements for a total of $195 million. That comes to 37 agreements for a total of $673.3 million in federal contribution, and yet my friend opposite says we have abandoned Atlantic Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is tragic to realize that one can take a rookie Member of Parliament, give him a car and a chauffeur, and call him a Minister. He arrives in this Chamber and begins to sound like the perennial parrot repeating the lines written by the bureaucracy which represents the interests and the market-place mentality being put forward as by this administration. That is not only tragic, it is disappointing when one listens to responsible voices in Atlantic Canada, including the voices of-I nearly choke on the words-four Progressive Conservative Premiers now elected in Atlantic Canada to the Chamber of Commerce to the Transportation Commission and to the Economic Council of the Atlantic provinces. We listen to all those voices commenting on the direction taken by this Government in abandoning the regional development policy and abandoning the tools which allow an area of high disparity to develop. After listening to those words, the Minister opposite appears to be like a speck in a snowstorm, blowing against the wind and, like a speck in a snowstorm, I predict he shall be buried come the next election.
In prefacing my question, I want to say to the Minister that Hon. Members on this side are not asking today that a magic wand be waved and that A.B.C. directives be followed and all will be well, prosperous and floating in the fat of the land. As the Minister said, it is not that simple and it is not what we are suggesting. Hon. Members opposite, by the way, Mr. Speaker, are not suggesting we were floating in the fat of the land previous to the last election. We understand and recognize we were not. We do not make any other case. What we are saying is that there is the philosophy that everyone, no matter where he or she lives in this country, has a right at least to equal opportunity-and only opportunity and not guarantees-to develop their full potential, and that those kind of programs which provided access to opportunity ought not to be destroyed. That is what we are saying and the Minister has failed to come to grips with that.
Could the Minister tell us whether he has heard the voice of the Premier of Newfoundland, Premier Peckford, a Progressive Conservative; the voice of Premier Lee of Prince Edward Island, a Progressive Conservative; the voice of Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick, a Progressive Conservative, and the voice of Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia, a Progressive Conservative, all of whom have said that the projected cuts in transfer payments are in essence a transfer of the federal deficit on to the backs of provincial Governments? And if that occurs, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) insists that it will, we are going to see a reduction in education, which provides our young people with the ability to go out and compete in the market-place, and hospital care for our people.


Supply
Has the Minister heard these voices? Is he making their case in Cabinet? Does the Minister accept the reasoning that the cut-backs being proposed will ultimately send Atlantic Canada on a treadmill into the past rather than being able to march confidently into the future?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond. I would suggest to Hon. Members that an increase in federal transfer payments of $25 billion over the next five years will very adequately pay for any demand for hospital and educational services.


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is a cut in transfer payments.


Stewart Donald McInnes: In my own particular Department of Supply and Services, in order to ensure that Atlantic Canadians prosper, the Government is going to spend an additional $50 million in Atlantic Canada in the ensuing year. We have also undertaken a program of education so that small business- which is where the opportunity is in our province-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Stewart Donald McInnes: We are allowing small business the opportunity-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if this process is going to be worth-while, the Minister ought to answer the question about transfer payments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services has the floor.


Stewart Donald McInnes: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, given the opportunity for our policies to work, the requirement for transfer payments will be mitigated, given time. We are going about the Atlantic provinces, as indeed we are in other parts of Canada, with programs on how to do business with the federal Government in order to ensure that small business, which is the essence of Atlantic Canada, has the opportunity to participate. That program has started and will accelerate over the next year.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the new, so-called "rookie", Member of Parliament for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes), the new Minister of Supply and Services, because he is showing good leadership and good fiscal management in his new portfolio. I wish him continued success.
What the Minister did not point out is that we are again talking to the provinces. The various Departments of the federal Government have met consistently and regularly with their counterparts in Atlantic Canada, more so than the Liberals ever did. The Liberals totally ignored Atlantic Canada for decades.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently released statistics from a survey it did of its 750,000 members concerning the capital gains exemption of $.5 million which will encourage investment to diversify the economy. The CFIB survey showed that as a result of this, more than 55 per cent of
small business owners are likely to expand their operations; 20 per cent would start a new firm; 16 per cent would buy another firm and 24 per cent would invest in someone else's business. Does the Minister of Supply and Services not feel that this is contributing to a new level of confidence in Atlantic Canada?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I think that is corroboration, testimony to and further evidence of the fact that the policies started by this Government 14 months ago are indeed working. Every month when Statistics Canada brings forth the economic indicators, we see that everything that should be up is up and everything that should be down is down. Bankruptcies are down, inflation is down and employment is up. Investment opportunities are up. Everything is up. The Minister from Cape Breton-East Richmond will know that in Nova Scotia small business intends to hire 24 per cent more people this year than it did last year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will allow a short question by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Minister is wrong. I did mention my constituency. I did talk about Cape Breton in my opening remarks. Second, I have not been a Member of Parliament for seven years. Third, I am not a Minister, I am the Member of Parliament for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
My question is this. Does the Minister agree or disagree with the Premier of New Brunswick when he says unequivocally that unilateral cut-backs in transfer payments will cause New Brunswick to implement user fees or higher tuition fees? Does he agree or disagree?


Stewart Donald McInnes: I was present at the First Ministers' conference, and all the Premiers, in varying degrees, commented on the transfer payments. The feeling was about fifty-fifty, a matter of degree. Some were more strident. The essence of all the comments was: Would you entertain continuing transfers at the same level for a year? When they received the explanation from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that in our current circumstances we were not able to do so, that was accepted. There is now a spirit of co-operation and consultation and we will continue to consult.


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


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, one of the changes in the way we debate was that after speeches of 20 minutes we have a 10-minute question and answer period. I want to tell you that one of the phoniest exercise we have is when a regressive Conservative gets up and asks Ministers all sorts of nice pat and puffy questions so he can blow his horn. He says unemployment is down, bankruptcies are down. Well, in the Gallup polls the Tories are down, and you are going to go lower, brother.


John Barry Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not a regressive Tory, I am a Progressive Tory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, some would say Progressive Tory is a contradiction in terms. The two are mutually exclusive.
I listened to the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merri-thew) and he sounded so much as if we were back in 1972, 1973 and 1974 when the Liberals were sitting over there and the Conservatives were sitting in opposition. The Conservatives were raising the same sort of questions about Atlantic Canada, and members of the Liberal Government were getting up and thumping themselves on the back, breaking their wrists over what a great job they were doing in Atlantic Canada.


Charles James Mayer: And you were sitting there with the Liberals in 1972.


John R. Rodriguez: To hear the Tories today you would think they just discovered Atlantic Canada.
I thought I would participate in this debate because whenever I go to Atlantic Canada I feel very much at home. Atlantic Canada is much like the area I come from. It is very much like northern Ontario. We, just as in Atlantic Canada, have developed from the exploitation of our resources, fishing, mining and forestry. One thing we do not have in northern Ontario is agriculture, but to an extent we are very similar. We in northern Ontario feel the same way Atlantic Canadians feel about their place in the sun called Canada, their role in helping to develop this great nation. In other words, we feel we have been short-changed.
I know Atlantic Canadians are getting the impression, if they do not have it already, that they are not participating fully in the development of our country. We see southern Ontario as the ace in the deck of cards. All our resources are taken out of the ground and the trees are cut down and sent to southern Ontario to be finished. There is little or no manufacturing at all in our area. All of the research and development and manufacturing takes place in the southern part of this province. Having watched this for some time I feel it was a deliberate strategy in developing the southern part of the province. For Atlantic Canada it would be central Canada which is being developed at the expense of the hinterland. Indeed, things like freight rates were put in place by Government fiat, and they discriminate against those two parts of the country, Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario. It locks us into forever being hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have not eliminated these trade barriers and hinderances.
I will give you the specific example, Mr. Speaker, of the steel industry. As far as I know there are no iron ore deposits in southern Ontario. They are in the North. The iron ore is mined and shipped to southern Ontario. Bill Davis built Nan-
Supply
ticoke, a brand-new operation, to finish steel. Why was that not done where the ore was mined? I suspect the same thing has happened in Cape Breton. That part of the country was sacrificed to develop the steel industry in the Hamilton area. This is all the design of the past. Fish were caught and shipped to the United States to be processed and canned there. The value of secondary processing was added there. All the people in Newfoundland were good for, under the old structure, was to catch the fish, gut them, cut off their heads and tails and ship them south. Then we have the forestry. What a scandal! There was never any plan or program for harvesting the forests of Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario. The only plan was to cut them down as quickly as you can and ship them out. As a result, there were serious problems in New Brunswick with the spring run-off where the trees had been cut. There was no program to plant a tree where a tree was cut. When the people concerned discovered the disaster, they turned to both the provincial and the federal Governments for money to replant trees.
Much has been made of unemployment figures. I want to put some unemployment figures on the record which came out of Statistics Canada last Friday. The national unemployment rate is 10.2 per cent. The adjusted figure in Newfoundland is 19.6 per cent, the same as the previous month. In Nova Scotia it is 13.5 per cent, up by .4 per cent from the previous month. In New Brunswick it is 15.2 per cent, up by .2 per cent. In Prince Edward Island it is 15.3 per cent, up by 2 per cent from the previous month. This did not happen overnight. This is the result of years of attention and concern by both provincial and federal Governments to make sure that the economies of those provinces were developed with the best interests of the people at heart. But often times, and we can look at history, it was the Governments of those provinces which sold the people out. They were amply aided and abetted by the federal Government. The history is clear. Look at Joey Smallwood's performance in Newfoundland. He ripped the resources out of the ground and sold them out. He had no concern for the health and safety of the people. I went to the little town of St. Lawrence in Newfoundland. In the graveyard one sees the results of the lack of concern by a provincial Government for the occupational health and safety of the folks. The federal Government gave a company concessions to exploit that resource with no concern for the people. Members in the House should hang their heads in shame.
I know that my good friends on the Liberal benches are sincere folks, but federal Liberal Governments and provincial Conservative and Liberal Governments should hang their heads in shame. Is Joey Smallwood's resettlement plan to move everyone in from the outports so different from what Donald Macdonald is saying in his latest report? He says that we should give them relocation grants to move them out. He is an up-dated Joey Smallwood. That is the mentality. They do that instead of tackling the problem.
I would like to put a shocking statistic on the record. Income per capita in Newfoundland is 65.3 per cent of the national


Supply
average. In Prince Edward Island it is 67.9 per cent, in Nova Scotia it is 78.5 per cent, and in New Brunswick it is 71.8 per cent. The earned income per capita as a percentage of the national average is 59.2 per cent in Newfoundland, 60 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 74.1 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 65.4 per cent in New Brunswick. This is a most shocking statistic which speaks volumes of provincial and federal Government in action.
Unemployment insurance payments per capita as a percentage of the national average are 260 per cent in Newfoundland, 216 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 141 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 205 per cent in New Brunswick. Individual subsidies per capita are 190 per cent of the national average in Newfoundland, 233 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 295 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 295 per cent in New Brunswick.
All that did not happen in 14 months, as the motion of my hon. friend, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), would suggest in its political thrust. It did not happen in 14 months of Conservative rule. It happened in over 100 years of provincial and federal Conservative and Liberal rule. That is the reality. I do not think that the Government has yet recognized that Canada is diverse. It says it in all its rhetoric, but I do not think it has really impinged on its consciousness that this is indeed a diverse country, not only geographically, but in its human and natural resources as well.
As I watched the implementation of DREE and its conversion to DRIE I had the impression that the thinking was that a federal policy or program should apply equally to all parts of the country and that all the decisions have to be made in Ottawa. It has not occurred to the Government that there is something called "decentralization". It did not occur to Governments of the past, nor has it occurred to the present Government, that there is a thing called "economic planning". I know that to many of these Conservatives the words "economic planning" are an anathema. However, it seems to me that Atlantic Canada is now reaping the harvest of the lack of economic planning or economic strategizing of the last 100 years. The Government has always followed a "top down" approach. You throw a few dollars at the top and let it trickle down.
DREE was developed by a Liberal Government specifically for Atlantic Canada to try to implant some secondary manufacturing industries. As demands on the federal Budget grew, DREE started to diminish. I would like to give my hon. friends some figures which I got from a speech given by the Chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. He pointed out that in 1972 DREE expenditures were 67 per cent of UI payments and that by 1982 the reduced DREE expenditures were 10 per cent of the UI payments. In other words, unemployment was becoming a far greater industry than anything that DREE could create.
The Government is now contemplating changes from a central position which will only exacerbate an already serious situation. One example is the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. They do not take into consideration the fact
that fishermen in Newfoundland are hardly likely to get 20 weeks of insured earnings this year.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Ten.


John R. Rodriguez: They are lucky if they get ten. We have heard of the heart-rending situation of the gentleman who gave up his kidney to his sister and could not qualify for the 15 weeks of sick benefits. 1 sat in the House in 1978 when the Liberals were trying to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. They had all sorts of reports that said employment was great in Atlantic Canada. They were going to cut back on part-time workers. I remember that we fought that tooth and nail, but they got their way. The pot cannot call the kettle black here, Mr. Speaker.
Another change that is coming is the attack on the deficit. One of the greatest transfers of money is the transfer payments to provincial Governments through subsidies. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have two minutes remaining in his speech plus a ten-minute question and comment period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock today.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


George Roland Henderson: "Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada agriculture and business alike will die a natural death unless we can change the philosophy of our federal politicians and bureaucrats". That warning came from the President of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture last spring.
We have only to look at the Island's potato and tobacco industry to see the truth in these words. The potato industry has hit rock bottom. Prices are low and there are no buyers. Even if farmers could sell their crops, it is hardly worth it. Farmers are getting between 1.5 cents and 2 cents a pound for their potatoes. The cost of production is between 5 cents and 6 cents a pound. Who can afford to stay in business with those returns?


The future of our primary producers is bleak. Farmers who have never owed a cent in their lives now tell me that they cannot even pay their bills. They are in serious trouble and in danger of losing their farms.
We grow the best seed potatoes in the world but we cannot even sell those. Our marketing techniques are outdated. The Europeans are capturing all of our markets.
How does the Government respond to this depressing situation? It hits them when they are down, with inspection fees, increased fuel prices, and a user pay policy.
This country needs a policy that shows respect for our primary producers. We do not need a policy that puts them out of business. We need to beef up our marketing techniques. Farmers need national marketing boards to guarantee them at least the cost of production. The Government must act immediately.
The family farm is disappearing, farmers are going bankrupt, and the Government is doing nothing about it.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 37th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus it seems an appropriate time to reflect briefly upon the referenda being held on university campuses on disinvestment of pension funds in South Africa.
I am shocked that members of some university faculty associations, faced with the moral choice, have determined to settle the matter by referendum. On reflection, however, I should not be surprised. The issue of apartheid is not whether it kills and oppresses millions only because of the colour of their skin. It is essentially whether there exists the moral fortitude to reject the perpetuation of the moral equivalent of slavery when what is at stake is corporate or individual financial gain.
Doubtless there will be those who find solace in the argument that sanctions such as disinvestment will hurt blacks more than comfortable profitable neutrality. They will have few qualms in disregarding the assertion by leaders of the front line states or by 73 per cent of black South Africans that sanctions, including disinvestment, will damage them less than the other sacrifices demanded by the fight for freedom.
There is no moral dilemma. It is a question of justice for others or profit for oneself. The moral choice is clear. The ultimate victory of the oppressed is assured. They who value profits over human justice will ultimately lose, not only virtue, but profits.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is keeping a major campaign promise by introducing a minimum personal income tax effective January 1, 1986. This measure is another key element of our economic renewal program. In fact, this formula reflects, in a very sensible and effective way, the principle of equity on which our economic policy is based. Its purpose is to ensure that every year, high income Canadians bear their fair share of the tax burden.
This minimum tax on the rich is aimed at taxpayers with very high incomes, who will no longer be able to escape paying income tax, and at large corporations that will no longer get tax rebates upon the sale of assets. This reform of the tax system will make the system more equitable and provide for stronger economic growth.
The Bill presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is aimed at closing a tax loophole that made it possible for thousands of citizens well versed in the art of claiming tax deductions to avoid paying income tax.
The Government is also aware that existing tax incentives were introduced for valid economic and social reasons. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the minimum tax will have a carry-forward mechanism to ensure that the value of tax incentive deductions and credit is not lost.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were annexed by the Soviet Union.
Three years later and 37 years ago today, on December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That Declaration calls upon all of the United Nations member states, including the Soviet Union, to guarantee to every human being freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom from torture or cruel or degrading treatment of punishment; freedom of movement; freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; right to a fair trial; the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a nationality.
Thirty-seven years later the people of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania and the people of the Ukraine are still waiting for


the restoration of those rights and freedoms. Canada has spoken out and acted strongly on behalf of human rights in South Africa. We must speak and act just as strongly on behalf of human rights in eastern Europe.



DELAY IN SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1985, the Minister of Energy signed away billions of dollars to the oil compagnies. After accomplishing that task, she said that a new agreement with Nova Scotia was "next on her agenda". She needed, however, "a weekend to rest". It is now December 10 and there is still no deal. Nova Scotia's Energy Minister now says that the deal will not be ready until the new year. It sure has been one long weekend.
Why is it taking so long to sign a deal with Nova Scotia? Maybe it is because of what the federal Energy Minister's policies have done to Nova Scotia. Thanks to the new policies there is only rig operating off the coast of Nova Scotia. There were nine last year.
John Beddome, President of Dome Petroleum, says the new policy means a gain in western Canada but: "It comes at the expense of Nova Scotia's hopes for its Venture project at Sable Island."
Allan Ruffman, Vice-President of Geomarine Associates Limited, says that oil and gas activity off Nova Scotia will be cut in half in 1986, following a steep reduction this year.
Informetrica predicts "meagre growth for Nova Scotia's economy" this year.
Perhaps one of the stumbling blocks in signing the deal is just how to compensate Nova Scotia for the revenues lost compared to its 1982 deal with the former Government. But how do you compensate for completely destroying oil and gas activity off the coast of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker? The Minister may need a few more weekends to think about it.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted this morning, as I am sure were many of my colleagues, when we learned that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), has been using the taxpayers' money to pay members of her staff salaries well above the levels set down by the Treasury Board.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources paid Mr. Harry Near $50,000 for only four months work as her Chief of Staff last year. On an annual basis, this works out to $150,000.
Mr. Near's contract was extended for an additional two months, for which he picked up the tidy sum of $22,000. Outrageous, you say! Incredible! But wait, there is more. The Minister of Energy used the taxpayers' money to pay Mr. Near another $25,000 for six weeks' work last spring, and another $10,000 for four weeks' work this past summer.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre was the only government Minister to make a special request to the Treasury Board for additional sums of taxpayers' money to pay her staff salaries well above the guidelines. This Minister is single-handedly giving a new meaning to the old cliche that it pays to have friends in high places. If you are a friend of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, it not only pays, but it pays handsomely.
What sort of signal does it send out to ordinary Canadians when they find out that the Minister of Energy is spending their hard-earned tax dollars on huge salaries for her friends? Last week my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), accused the former Minister of the Environment of spending taxpayers' money like a drunken sailor. I would like to point out that at least drunken sailors spend their own money. The Minister of Energy would do well to remember that.



HOUSING


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the figures published recently by Statistics Canada for housing starts in this country during the month of November.
These figures indicate an increase of 58 per cent, that is, an annual seasonally adjusted total of 197,000 housing starts, compared with a total of 125,000 last year.
In urban centres with a population of over 10,000, the number of units increased from 8,647 in 1984 to 14,260 in November 1985. This represents an increase of nearly 65 per cent. The number of single-family dwellings under construction in the same centres over the same period increased from 5,271 to 8,125, an increase of 54 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, this increase in housing starts is largely due to our policies to promote economic renewal. Falling interest rates, more stable prices and a series of favourable economic forecasts have made it attractive for Canadians to carry out their residential construction projects. This country is caught up in a new wave of optimism.
Mr. Speaker, these new projects are not only a boon to home builders but also to manufacturers of household appliances, surveyors, architects, moving companies and the general public.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, contains stiffer fines and tougher jail sentences for those persons convicted of dangerous or impaired driving. These changes, which came into effect on December 2, 1985, will be welcomed by all Canadians. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has shown real leadership in taking the necessary initiatives to get these improvements into law.
I was with the Justice Minister at Queen's Park yesterday when he and the Attorney General of Ontario spoke of the objectives and importance of this new legislation. The scope of criminal liability has been expanded where an impaired driver has caused injury or death.
The sentences will be much tougher for dangerous or impaired driving offences. For instance, dangerous or impaired driving causing death now carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. The RIDE program which began in the City of Etobicoke, Ontario, in 1974, together with this new legislation, will most certainly go a long way to deter dangerous and impaired driving and thereby save the lives of many innocent Canadian citizens.



CN MARINE


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to express my profound disappointment with the treatment which some workers in my riding are receiving at the hands of the Government.
As if the cuts at the Canadian Wildlife Service in Sackville, the lay-offs at the CN shops and the relocation of the animal pathology lab were not enough, I have been informed that CN Marine is laying off nine employees at the ferry crossing from Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, to Borden, Prince Edward Island. The Government is showing no mercy. It is cutting left and right with absolutely no feeling for the welfare of the people it is affecting, with absolutely no concern for the damaging effect it is having on the less developed regions of the country which must rely heavily on federal Government dollars and federal jobs to keep their economy afloat.
The People of New Brunswick cannot understand the action of the Government because they were led to believe that more jobs would be coming their way. Instead, the Government is cutting jobs, and the Government is deceiving and mistreating the people of Atlantic Canada.



S.O. 22 THE PRESS CLAIM TO ACT AS OFFICIAL OPPOSITION DISPUTED

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, last October 7 the publisher of The Citizen of Ottawa was interviewed on the French language program "Le Point". 1 do not know to what extent Mr. Keith Spicer spoke for the rest of the media during this interview, but he must certainly have spoken for The Citizen, which is the most widely distributed newspaper in the nation's capital. Accordingly, his views and approach to publishing are of importance to the House and to the country, no matter in which language they are stated.
Today 1 should like to isolate one unequivocal statement which he made during the interview that sheds light on his perception of the role of The Citizen in national politics. In response to a question regarding his newspaper playing the part of the Official Opposition, he replied:
For lack of a real opposition, we had to perform this task and, quite so, Mr. Turner and his team have not. There is not even a particularly biting attack, and for lack of a true opposition, I think it is reasonable for the press to step in.
I should like to remind Mr. Spicer that the Opposition in the House has earned the right to the title not only of Official Opposition but that of Loyal Opposition, by going to the citizenry for its mandate. This gives opposition Members both the right and the obligation to criticize, within the boundaries of remaining loyal to the basic principles of our Constitution.
Mr. Spicer has no mandate from anyone except his shareholders and, as a good entrepreneur, no obligation to be loyal to anything except his profit and loss statement. The more I read his coverage of real events and some non-events, the more this becomes apparent.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, last month Inco Ltd. was given an award by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in the productivity category of the Canada Awards for Excellence competition. In giving this award to Inco, the Government ignored a basic fact: the increase in productivity was accomplished by Inco wiping out thousands of jobs over the past five years.
[DOT] (MIS)
It is the workers of Inco who should be given an award for increased productivity. Indeed, they are so productive that they produced themselves out of a job. Inco's award came less than three weeks before it announced yet another round of workforce reductions. No doubt the company is going for the gold medal in next year's competition.
In giving the award to a company which has cut its workforce from 34,000 to 14,000, the Government is sending a clear message to the private sector that the more workers who


Oral Questions
are laid off, the more productive is a business. It seems to me that instead of rewarding companies which lay off workers, the Government should realize that Inco has made its wealth on the backs of the workers and that this company has a responsibility to the community to make alternative employment available.
Awards should be given to Inco the day it stabilizes its employment and provides for secondary mineral development in Canada. In the meantime, the silver medal ought not to go to Inco but the Government should distribute silver medals to all laid off and retired workers of Inco as they are the real winners in the productivity sweepstakes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and deals with the Government's survey to determine just how big will be the telephone rate increase the Government plans to foist on Canadians. This is a very bizarre way to test our pain threshold.
The telephone is the lifeline to the outside world for senior citizens and shut-ins. The telephone is the life-blood for small businesses and charities. Can the Prime Minister justify even contemplating the doubling of the rates for basic telephone services for small businesses, senior citizens, and people who are too ill to leave their homes? How can he justify spending taxpayers' money to promote such an unjust and unfair plan?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications will be in the House momentarily.


Some Hon. Members:: Here he is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Indeed, my colleague is here right now. Possibly he can carry on and finish the beginning of a very excellent answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this question which refers to a survey by Decima Research, ordered last spring by the Department of Communications, does not in any way alter the responsibility of the CRTC which is to set telephone rates in Canada. The survey is part of a series of studies ordered by federal-provincial committees and by the CRTC to provide the broadest possible base and a maximum of information for defining a Canadian
telecommunications policy that will be in the interest of Canadians.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Minister just sent back a decision by the CRTC-

-I would like to know, and my question is directed to the same Minister... Last year, Bell Canada's profits were around $940 million. The elderly have received pensions that are below the poverty line.
Considering these figures, could the Minister explain why he is considering a plan that will increase the cost of local telephone services to consumers by $720 million?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since it is not the Government's responsibility to set telephone rates in Canada, it will be a pleasure to refer your question to the CRTC, for consideration.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REJECT POLL FINDINGS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the Minister is turning over the CRTC's questions. The Minister's actions speak much louder that his words. I would remind him of his secret cabinet document.
I would like to know why the Minister undertook such an expensive poll. Now that he has done so, will the Minister reject that poll and reassure all Canadians that there will be no increase in local telephone rates this coming year?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to reject or to confirm a survey. I can discuss the methodology used in the survey. However, as long as the answers were given in accordance with the methodology used, I cannot approve or disapprove of the way Canadians respond to a survey.
Furthermore, the Government promised last spring to review our telecommunications policy in Canada. We have approached this issue bearing a number of basic principles in mind, including that of providing Canadians with a universal service at reasonable cost. This review of our telecommunications policy is being carried out with the provinces, who have a major responsibility in this area, and an important phase in this review will be the federal-provincial conference next February.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday the Minister emphasized the large amounts of money which he said the taxpayers would save if the Government sold de Havilland to Boeing. It seems that Boeing will be putting very little into de Havilland compared to the amount of money which the taxpayers will have to put into it under the deal which the Government has accepted. Has the Minister done any calculations with respect to the amount of money the taxpayers of Canada will have to put into this company after the sale to Boeing which will become the owner and beneficiary of all the profits of the company? Does he know and can he tell us how much Canadian taxpayers will continue to put into the company over the next five years?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, certainly an awful lot less than was put in by the former Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert René de Cotret: 1 think I have mentioned in respect to this type of question in the House time and time again that, under Boeing, de Havilland will be eligible, like any other corporation, for the various programs of this Government. To the extent it wishes to invest, grow and create jobs, it will be eligible for all the assistance for which any other corporation in the country is eligible.


COST TO TAXPAYERS INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is just not credible that the Government has made a big deal like this without having done a calculation with respect to how much the taxpayers will be called on to put into it.
Can the Minister confirm a calculation which I have done-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -which shows that over the next five years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think the Canadian people would be happy to have the Government's calculation. I insist the Government must have done one. Does the Minister dispute that the cost to the Canadian taxpayers with respect to selling this company and continuing with Boeing as the owner, if things go well, will be something in the neighbourhood of $580 million over the next five years?
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to suggest that there will be a cost to taxpayers with respect to this transaction.


Mr. Broadbent:: He is right, too.


Robert René de Cotret: This transaction is a good deal.


Mr. Blaikie:: That is what you said when you bought your Edsel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: I would like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in Winnipeg's Free Press:
If that happens-


Mr. Frith:: Never mind the editorial, give us a cost analysis. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Robert René de Cotret: -Boeing will have got itself, in the words of UAW Canada President Bob White, "a hell of a deal." But it will also be a hell of deal for Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: -who will have in place a company which is employing Canadian workers, selling a Canadian product all over the world and paying taxes to Canadian governments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEGOTIATION OF SALE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that with the kind of write-offs he has given Boeing it will make profits for the next 10 to 15 years and not have to pay a cent in taxes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Move General Motors to Saskatoon.


Mr. Dick:: Are you in the UAW's pocket?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: They are testy over there today.


John Edward Broadbent: Tory herds are difficult to control.
I do have a question for the Minister. Will he confirm that in the negotiations with respect to the sale of de Havilland to Boeing the Canadian side did not even raise the question of job guarantees or a buy-back provision in the event of a shut-down by Boeing? Will the Minister confirm that?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of job security was obviously brought up. It was a central concern of this Government, as job creation has been throughout our mandate. It was brought


Oral Questions
up and we are assured that the best job security for the employees of de Havilland is exactly the kind of deal we made with Boeing, with its financial and marketing strengths, the world product mandate, and the technology which we retain in Canada. That is where the real job security will come from.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has just said that the best job guarantee is no guarantee because he knows, unlike the Cana-da-U.S. automotive agreement and other deals which have been made for the transfer of ownership, there is not a guarantee written into that agreement. The Minister knows that.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Since we learned this as a result of Paul Marshall's briefing late yesterday to Members representing all Parties in the Ontario Legislature-which was a meeting I just learned about-does the Minister think it appropriate that Members of the Canadian House of Commons have to learn through private contacts with people in Toronto what a federal Crown corporation is doing? Why is that information not provided to the Canadian House of Commons?


Robert René de Cotret: believe, Mr. Speaker, that before we announced the transaction, complete folders of the available information were made available to all Hon. Members of this House.


An Hon. Member:: You can't read.


John Edward Broadbent: No. Folders with nothing in them don't matter an awful lot.


FINALIZATION OF DEAL
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that Mr. Marshall gave Members of the Ontario Legislature all kinds of information yesterday which is not available to Hon. Members of this House. Will the Minister confirm that if the Government of Canada does not finalize this deal by the end of this month, it is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada another $60 million? And does that explain why the Government is in such a rush to make a bad deal with Boeing?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are making a great deal with Boeing, and we are making a great deal for Canada. Again I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press:
Instead of sniping and complaining, Ed Broadbent and Lloyd Axworthy should be down on their knees on behalf of Canadian taxpayers-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Is that your briefing note?


An Hon. Member:: On your knees, Ed.


Robert René de Cotret: -thanking the Government for removing this millstone from around their necks. And Bob White should be down on his knees thanking Boeing for giving his... members a chance to continue applying their skills in a productive enterprise which now has the chance to be an asset rather than a burden to the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, when his colleagues are prepared to let him ask a question.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that his economic policies are not working in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Unemployment is up, and it is up substantially. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why the recommendation of the Cape Breton Advisory Committee-the appointments to which he made-of $600 million for short-term job-creation programs has not been acted upon by his Government, particularly in view of the fact that 4,000 additional Canadians in that area of Canada are unemployed as opposed to last year? Why is the Prime Minister dragging his feet on this most important initiative?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: First, Mr. Speaker, the indication as set out by my hon. friend that the economic policies are not working is, of course, demonstrably false-demonstrably false. This Government has created more jobs in 14 months than the Liberals did in 55 months. That is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It will interest my hon. friend because it will interest anyone who is hopeful about the welfare of Canada, to hear some fact which just came out moments ago. Housing starts during November were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 197,000, up 65 per cent over last year. Starts of multiple-unit dwellings were up 82 per cent-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -over last year. This is very good news for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: They don't like that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is consistent with all-


An Hon. Member:: They don't like success.


Mr. Nystrom:: How about the Gallup poll, Brian?


An Hon. Member:: They can't stand good news.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know the doomsters and gloomsters of the NDP do not like good news, but hang on to your hats because you are going to have nothing but good news from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the very excellent question raised by my hon. friend concerning Cape Breton Island-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Gallup poll, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: "Gallup poll", he says. The NDP stumbled from lack of success-


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


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will participate in the debate this afternoon regarding the disasterous economic conditions in Atlantic Canada. That is the economy to which I am referring. We need more jobs in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
Why is the Prime Minister reneging on the recommendation of a committe, which he appointed, for $600 million in shortterm job creation? He appointed a bunch of Tory hacks. Why does he not listen to them for a change?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with and accept as valid the observations of my hon. friend regarding Cape Breton, for which not only the Government but this House must do more. This is a very important area of our economy and it has been left out of the renewal of economic life in this country where 416,000 new jobs were created since this Government came to office. I will acknowledge that Cape Breton has not received its fair share of those jobs, but I can tell you this. We will make sure, with your help, that Cape Breton indeed receives its share, which will be a lot more than it ever got from the Liberals. That is for sure.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister says we will be getting nothing but good news in the future. All I want is some information.
The Minister indicated on December 3 that details of the arrangement between de Havilland and Boeing would be made available. Given that, is he now prepared to put before this House all of the relevant information regarding the negotiations which have taken place to date between de Havilland and Boeing so that the House of Commons, representing the people of Canada, can make an evaluation of whether or not that is good news?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked, and asked, and asked, over and over again.


Some Hon. Members:: And not answered.


Robert René de Cotret: It has been answered over, and over, and over again. The answer is very simple. The details of the sale of de Havilland to Boeing will be made available according to normal procedure at the normal time and in the normal forum.


BRIEFING OF ONTARIO POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, why are the Leaders of the three Parties in the Province of Ontario being briefed on the details of this deal and the Minister refuses to give the same information to the Members of the House of Commons?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there have been questions over the last week and I have given all the information that is available publicly to Hon. Members. So 1 think the premise of the question is entirely false. Furthermore, there was a full day's debate and a vote on this issue in which this House expressed its faith in the Government's action.
# * #


INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. After making firm commitments with respect to Quebec's petrochemical industry, the Government is worrisomely silent about the break-up of two important links in the petrochemical chain, namely Gulf and BASF, and it unduly puts off announcing a lasting solution to Petromont and, indirectly, for Union Carbide.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government is still determined to promote and maintain a third Canadian petrochemical centre, in Montreal, and what immediate steps


Oral Questions
it will take to prevent the dismantling of that whole sector in Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue the sustained efforts which we have made since taking office and which have resulted in the creation of about 9,000 new jobs in Quebec every month, as compared with the 673 jobs created monthly during the four and a half years of the previous administration.
Our performance has been impressive, but with respect to the question raised by my colleague, l intend to meet with the Premier of Quebec in the near future and hold further talks about this important matter.


INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF PETROCHIMIE ACTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister is undoubtedly aware, the inaction of his Government has led to the establishment of a common front in Montreal yesterday-it is called Petrochimie Action-and this group is expected in Ottawa tomorrow. I want to ask the Prime Minister if his generosity and sense of responsibility will be strong enough to prompt him to meet with those people who will be here tomorrow to share their concerns and disarray with him. It is five minutes to midnight for those workers, Mr. Prime Minister, and their children are looking forward to Christmas. Will he have the generosity to meet with them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: When those workers do get here, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend will remind them of two things: one, the new Government's first move was to set aside several million dollars to help Petromont, while at the same time the outgoing Liberal Government was telling Petromont workers: No, it is over, not a nickel. That is what you did for Petromont and those workers will certainly remember that. You in the Liberal Party of Quebec are all hypocrites!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, both sides.

[ Translation]


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everyone was delighted to hear the announcement by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion-my question is directed to the Prime Minister-that, despite the Montreal Urban Community's plan to turn Canadair's facilities into a housing development, Canadair will remain in Montreal. However, since the Minister also announced that Canadair will be sold, could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that Canadair will remain in Canadian hands and not be sold to foreign interests?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the New Democratic Party who is doing his best to make people panic, raised a non-issue when he used a document produced by a municipal body in Quebec to draw some very definitive conclusions with respect to Canadair. Well, for years the Government of Quebec printed maps that showed Labrador as part of Quebec. But it didn't change a thing. It didn't make Labrador part of Quebec! And when the Leader of the New Democratic Party produces a document that says a municipal body in Montreal is going to close down Canadair, that is just as far from the truth!


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: He also ignores the fact that this particular plan was distributed to 300,000 homes in the urban community of Montreal in the last week and a half. It tells people of a very carefully worked out plan to replace Canadair with residential housing.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


John R. Rodriguez: Settle down over there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member will ask his question immediately, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Can the Prime Minister at least assure the House that Canadair will not be disposed of the way that de Havilland was without an opportunity for this House and a committee of this House to examine such a deal in advance of being presented with a fait accompli?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the House and everyone who watched it yesterday is aware of the vexatious way in which the Leader of the New Democratic Party sought to sow fear and confusion in the minds-


John Edward Broadbent: What nonsense. We asked you to guarantee it and you did not answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -of Quebecers and Quebec workers. I thought that that was unseemly, unfair, and unworthy of the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Orlikow:: We don't need lectures from you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -who ought to know full well-


John Edward Broadbent: Don't give me lectures on worthiness.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -that all of the leading economic indicators in the country are going the right way. Thousands and thousands of jobs are being created. I know it causes him heartache. He does not like good news.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can guarantee him that the Progressive Conservative Government has no lessons to learn-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -from the NDP in regard to protecting the jobs of Canadians and Quebecers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minsiter.


Mr. Speaker:: One.


Mr. Gauthier:: You're only allowed one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In that case I had better go to someone who has only one question. Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


John Barry Turner: I am trying, Mr. Speaker. My question for the Deputy Prime Minister concerns a recent report about the National Arts Centre, and I emphasize the word "National". Does he or the Government have any intention of accepting the recommendation of the Handleman task force to turn the National Arts Centre over to local municipalities or to the National Capital Commission?


Mr. Fulton:: He's sowing fear.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as part of the program review that was mandated by the Prime Minister a year ago last September, some 19 study teams, with over 102 private sector members and roughly the same number of public servants, have produced hundreds and hundreds and hundreds-
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: That's 300.


Erik Nielsen: -of alternatives, options, and suggestions with respect to solving the very real problems with the wide array of programs that have been examined. Cabinet is addressing those matters one by one. At the proper time the decisions will be announced-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's enough, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: -as the very attractive decision on the rationalization of real property was yesterday by the Minister of Public Works and the President of the Treasury Board.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question which 1 asked the Minister last October 9, the Minister indicated that CN lay-offs in Moncton were a result of a decline in traffic and that he hoped the lay-offs would not continue for a long period of time. Can the Minister then explain why 140 of the 225 workers who were laid off were informed that their lay-offs were permanent? And that, Mr. Prime Minister, is not good news.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is fully aware of the decline in CN traffic and of the fact that the available workload requires some adjustment in the work force.


Ms. Copps:: You're too busy running around arresting people.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: CN is currently conducting an internal assessment of its maintenance requirements. I suspect that that evaluation will be completed some time early in the new year. At that time we will be looking at various options. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representations and convey them to the management of the CNR. That is something that the Hon. Member for Moncton has been doing a very good job of, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASSURE PROTECTION OF JOBS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, there is a cloud of uncertainty hanging over Moncton right now. There are over 1,000 jobs on the line. When will the Minister take a stand on this issue and assure those people in Moncton that their jobs will be protected? This, Mr. Minister, would be very good news.


Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member, as I have assured the Hon. Member for Moncton, that I share that concern. The fact of the matter is that there is a serious decline in traffic. An internal assessment is being conducted. I am sure that at the appropriate time after making the evaluation CN will take the necessary action to ensure that it can provide the necessary services where the workload so requires.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to make the Hon. Member's representation known to the management of CNR. I want to assure him and the people of Moncton that I am deeply concerned about ensuring that we have an adequate presence in Moncton because it is a railway centre and a very important transportation centre in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


COMMUNICATIONS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. A recent decision of the CRTC refused an increase in the rates of B.C. Tel and turned down the application of CNCP to enter into competition in long-distance telephone rates. What reason would the Minister have for commissioning the poll done by Decima, which tells the Government that the public will accept increases of 10 per cent to 20 per cent a year for the next five years in telephone rates, other than that he has already decided that he is going to permit substantial increases in home telephone rates, and cuts in long-distance rates? If that is the policy, when will he announce it?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I may remind my hon. friend it is not for the Minister of Communications to regulate rates in the telephone sector in Canada. It is not the Minister's responsibility but that of the agencies or the provinces or the federal Government, through the CRTC, and these rates are determined through a process of public hearings and decisions by the CRTC or provincial agencies.
The Minister of Communications is responsible for providing, in consultation with the provinces, consumer groups, the telephone companies and Canada's business sector, for an in-depth review of our domestic telecommunications policy. We have been working on this since last spring, and the federal-provincial conference to be held next year in February will be an important step in this review. Surveys and studies that have been ordered either by the CRTC, the provinces or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid this is becoming a speech. Order, please.


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, any change in the regulated Bell Telephone rates will affect all other areas in Canada which are serviced by private or public systems because they are all partners in Telecom Canada. Would the Minister give his assurance that before any major changes are made they will be discussed and approved by the provincial Ministers of Communications as well as the CRTC?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the provincial ministers will be discussing the direction and basic principles of Canada's telecommunications policy, and not CRTC decisions, which would be against Canadian law.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Yesterday the House passed a resolution declaring Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada. Mr. Wallenberg is probably still in the Soviet Union and the resolution has been sent to the other House so that it can become a bicameral resolution. Can the House Leader tell us when he expects that resolution to come back to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, this is a question of House business, not one for Question Period. Order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directd to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He has said that he favours financial assistance for the second phase of the modernization of the Sydney Steel Corporation. The Premier of Nova Scotia has said that since October he has had a deal on this financing, yet the Prime Minister has recently said that there was no deal. Why, after 14 months of the Government's mandate, has it not been able to enter into an agreement for the funding of the second phase of the Sydney Steel Corporation modernization?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because I said no such thing, Mr. Speaker. I had a very effective meeting with the distinguished Premier of Nova Scotia in Halifax two weeks ago. We dealt in substantial measure with the Sysco modernization as well as other projects designed to be of deficit to Cape Breton. I believe that you will be seeing some very positive results in the near future.


IMPLEMENTATION OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond said, the Prime Minister established a Cape Breton advisory task force. The Government has only managed to put one of its 34 recommendations into effect. When will the Government implement some of the other 33 recommendations, including the modernization of Sysco? When will this happen, because you know the situation is bad and you know that the need is there?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do indeed, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend is quite right that the need exists and it is serious and urgent. Some of the fiscal measures that we have introduced have not been as attractive to industry in the short term as we would have liked. Consequently we are looking at that and a number of other measures designed to be of assistance to Cape Breton.
I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that Cape Breton has gone through a very special kind of misery in the last couple of years and we all very much want to be of assistance. I can assure him that I work with all Members of the House and the Premier of Nova Scotia to bring about a much better resolution of the difficulties on Cape Breton Island.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister about the threat of a boycott by American Majors against Quebec movie houses. Has the Prime Minister already spoken or will he speak to President Reagan to ask him to ensure that the Americans respect fully our Canadian culture, especially in instances where Quebec has taken action to promote an independent culture?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that last week in my speech at the University of Chicago, I made very clear statements of principle about the vital dimension of our cultural sovereignty and the determina-
Oral Questions
tion which the Government of Canada and all Canadians will show to ensure its preeminence at all times.


INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTION OF FILMS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was an answer to a different question, perhaps. We were very pleased to see the statement about cultural sovereignty. However, in view of the fact that there is a proposition about independent Canadian distribution, what chance will there be if the Prime Minister does not stand up to the Americans when the crunch comes? When the provinces or the federal Government want to promote an independent culture, is it not his job to stand up to defend them and fight for particular cases and not just spout the rhetoric of independence?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the report submitted publicly by the task force on the status of the cinema industry in Canada. As agreed by the task force and the province in Halifax, this report is a working paper which will be used by the provinces and the Canadian Government to analyze the situation, and it will certainly be an important tool at the Federal-Provincial Conference next February, which will deal with both the publishing and the movie industries in Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. Last year, after the disastrous gas leak in Bhopal, India, a committee was established by Environment Canada to look into the potential for a similar disaster in Canada. Has that committee made any recommendations to the Government and when will those recommendations be made public?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, following the tragic Bhopal accident of December, 1984, the Minister of the Environment established an industry-government task force which had three working groups looking at the potential for and handling of chemical accidents in Canada. That working group has reported with a working document which has now been sent by the Minister of the Environment to provincial Governments, municipal governments, the Canadian Labour Congress and others. We expect to have a final report by the end of January, 1986.


Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL TOBACCO MARKETING BOARD
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today thousands of farmers from the Mari-times and central Canada are on the Hill demanding that the Government keep its promise to establish a national marketing board for tobacco. They are also concerned that the Government will sell them out in the free trade negotiations with the United States.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the Government's promise to establish a national marketing board will not be sacrificed at the altar of free trade in the negotiations with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is just about now speaking to 1,500 or 2,000 representatives of the agricultural community at a very important national forum, the Outlook Canada Conference.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Look out.


Some Hon. Members:: Shush.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is a melody in the air, Mr. Speaker. It must be Christmas.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is a flat tire over there. That is the problem.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 had the pleasure of meeting briefly with the leaders of the group on Friday, after Question Period. The Parliamentary Secretary has met with them today, as will the Minister of Agriculture after his appearance. Hopefully this matter will be resolved. The meeting to take place between the procedures and the companies is scheduled for tomorrow. Hopefully a resolution of this very difficult and long-standing problem will be found.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Prime Minister wrote to one of the farmers and guaranteed that he would act quickly to establish a national marketing agency. Why should the farmers believe that the Prime Minister will not break his promise now? Is the Prime Minister prepared to speak to the farmers who are rallied in front of the Centre Block this afternoon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would such an Hon. Member cloak his question in such a spurious manner? He knows full well the reason for the dilatory tactic is because it is before the courts. It is something over which we have absolutely no control. You know that and you are willfully misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Kick the hypocrite out.


Mr. Manly:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Members will please come to order. I must ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to withdraw his last assertion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Hypocrite, that is what you are.


An Hon. Member:: Throw him out.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister will know that it is entirely out of order to use the phrase "willfully misleading the House". 1 would simply ask him to withdraw the phrase.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I violated a rule of the House and used the word "willfully", 1 withdraw it without reluctance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate affairs. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture declared a moratorium on farm foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation, and the Canadian farming community has been awaiting announcement of further action ever since. Will the Minister tell us if it is the Government's intention to reintroduce the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which had all-Party agreement in the last Parliament to handle the farm debt through debt review tribunals, with the power to provide for debt composition, debt set aside and interest reduction?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. friend that we have been aware of the situation for several months and have created an advisory committee to this end. We expect the committee to be submitting its recommendations within the new few weeks and we shall then take action accordingly.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON DEBT REPAYMENTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government be extending a moratorium that now applies to FCC loans to cover all farm loans until such time as


the Government makes a decision on farm debt policy, or is the current round of foreclosures the Government's policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will be back in the House tomorrow and I will take-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Is it government policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -notice of the Hon. Member's specific question.
With regard to government policy, even my hon. friend will admit that no Government in history has done so much for the farmers in such a short period of time as this one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Monday, December 9, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) by filing with the Clerk of the House also does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 87(2), it is my duty to lay upon the Table extracts of the minutes of meetings of the Board of Internal Economy approving budgets of certain standing and legislative committees.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I would like to
Statements by Ministers
table, in both official languages, a document in which the Government of Canada announces that the period 1983-92 will be the Decade of Disabled Persons in Canada.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, thirty-seven years ago today an historic document was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thirty articles of the Declaration set out a comprehensive framework for rights and freedoms. It covered the traditionally cherished and most commonly mentioned rights and freedoms, which are essential to the guarantee of individual liberty within a society.
For its part, Canada has a major and continuing commitment to the principles contained in the Universal Declaration. This commitment is perhaps best exemplified by the historic step which we took, as Canadians, in entrenching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada. For it was in making the Charter forever a part of the supreme law of Canada that we acknowledged our desire as a people to achieve social justice and human dignity as realities for all Canadians. These are not merely high-sounding phrases or legal abstractions. They represent our commitment as a nation to live in harmony and to thrive together as a community. As such, they offer an important living example for greater harmony within the world community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: The Universal Declaration was one of the first international documents that gave recognition to the evolutionary nature of human rights. As stated in its preamble, it set forth:
A common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.
In many ways, it became both a catalyst and a benchmark encouraging states to improve their human rights records and giving them an appropriate tool to measure the progress they had made. It is indeed fitting that we honour and commemorate the symbols and spirits of this important document. [Translation]
Today, on the 37th anniversary of the Proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, of announcing a new initiative by this Government, an initiative that is a direct response to the concerns of the United Nations and that is in line with Canada's historic commitment to human rights. This initiative concerns a very important part of our population, namely, the disabled.
Earlier this afternoon, I had the privilege of tabling the United Nations Declaration on the World Decade of Disabled Persons.


Statements by Ministers
At least 14 per cent of Canadians have a disability. There are the hearing and sight disabled, there are people with reduced mobility and people with mental health problems or a mental disability. The report Obstacles, published in January 1981 by a parliamentary committee, gave a clear indication of the many needs of disabled persons that were not met by either the public or the private sector.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations have proclaimed the period 1988-92 to be the Decade of Disabled Persons. The U.N. has prepared a world action plan in this respect.

In proclaiming Canada's participation in the World Decade of Disabled Persons today, we also proclaim our commitment to a set of principles that will govern our participation. These principles recognize the value and the need for disabled persons to be active participants in all those areas relating to the development of implementation of policies, programs and services which affect their lives.
To assist in this self-determination, our Government is initiating an innovative program of community support to disabled persons and their organizations. Detailed information of this new program is being distributed to Hon. Members this afternoon.
This new initiative will provide for the first time significant resources in direct support of Canada's disabled persons.
I am pleased today to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and through you all Canadians, particularly the 3.5 million Canadians who are disabled, that the Government is committing more than $16 million for the next five years to assist them in more fully participating in Canadian society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: This represents a fivefold increase over that which the previous Government has made available for this purpose.
Our strategy for change, consistent with the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the election campaign, is threefold.
One, for the first time, it is a collaborative partnership among federal and provincial Governments, business, labour, religious institutions, educational institutions, service groups and, most important, disabled persons themselves.
Two, it promotes the capabilities of disabled persons to participate more fully in Canada's economic and social life by providing a significant infusion of financial and technical resources to organizations of disabled persons to carry out activities in such important areas as research, teaching and organizing at the community level.
Three, it involves more effective planning and co-ordination of federal Government initiatives.
In this regard, I am pleased to announce that above and beyond this Government's commitment to community groups, a permanent secretariat is being established within my Department to advocate the needs of disabled persons within and among Governments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: As part of the Government's new strategy, we will continue to ensure that meaningful consultations are conducted with representatives of the disabled persons community to ensure that our actions as a Government reflect their genuine needs and desires in their quest for full citizenship. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Canada has chosen to highlight the decade by launching its own action program. As Minister responsible for the status of the disabled, I will hold consultations in 1986 with a view to convening a federal-provincial-territorial conference on the status of disabled persons. In addition, I will have a series of meetings with the private sector during that year. Those meetings will complement others with charitable organizations and public authorities, and they will enable us to draft and implement a national action program designed to honour our international commitment with respect to the World Decade of Disabled Persons.
In addition to the measures already mentioned and the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne, I am responsible for establishing a plan to follow up on the recommendations contained in the "Obstacles" report which has been left in limbo. This plan will also feature a number of new initiatives we might take to meet the challenge of the Decade of Disabled Persons, within the parameters of the world-wide action program concerning handicapped people.
Upon completion of this commitment on behalf of our Government, the report will be submitted to the parliamentary Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. Together, the subcommittee and I can measure the progress of our society in meeting the greater goals of full participation and equality of disabled persons.
In my view, the initiatives I have just announced give strong support to the principles which underlie the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am sure Hon. Members will support these measures to enhance the quality of life for disabled persons in Canada and will regard them as a fitting tribute to the Universal Declaration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the statement of the Hon. Minister. Indeed, he selected a very appropriate day to make such an important representation on behalf of the Government. It being Human Rights Day throughout the world, it is most fitting for him to have chosen it to discuss the human rights of a very important segment of our community-disabled persons who have made a contribu-


tion to society. As he pointed out, they represent a full 14 per cent of the population. I congratulate him on recognizing this day and choosing it to make his announcement in the House.
Also I recognize his observations regarding the importance of the Proclamation of Human Rights and the decade of disabled persons which began in 1983. They deserve being brought to the attention of our population. Also the House of Commons should be further sensitized to their importance. We agree with the objectives which the Minister set forth, and it is important to congratulate him on whatever intiatives are now being undertaken.
I thank him as well for bringing to my attention, at least an hour or two ahead of time, his comments and views so that I could have an opportunity to read them and attempt to reply. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I commend him on his concern and his announcement.
However, it is fitting at this time to point out a number of our concerns. We are pleased with the announced commitments, but we still have to say that it is time to act. We welcome the revelation that some $16 million will be made available to programming over the next five years. The Minister said in his statement that it was five times the amount passed by the previous Government. However, in the areas of employment, income tax and transportation, as well as in those areas under the office of the Secretary of State such as consumerism, indeed tens and tens of millions of dollars have been spent. This does not mean that more money should not be given; on the contrary.
Of course this is not a new initiative. The decade of disabled persons began in 1983. We remember that Governments of Canada in the past were concerned about the subject. In fact, in 1980, before the decade or the international year of the disabled was thought of, the previous Government brought into play a committee which made representations in a report entitled "Obstacles". That report suggested many things which needed to be done. We are working on those things, and I understand that the Government will double its efforts to clean up those recommendations which have not been dealt with. Indeed, I welcome the Government to the decade which began in 1983. I know the Government of Canada has been concerned about the matter since 1980 in an active way.
Specifically, it is time to act. I say to the Hon. Minister that we have seen some action. As I mentioned, the Obstacles Report called for action. Since that time the Government has been in receipt of other reports such as the Abella Report and the Equality Now Report of 1984, as well as recommendations from the Committee on Equality. I hope the Minister takes into account that words are not enough. Actions were demanded in these reports. They asked for laws which provided mandatory compliance in the field of employment, so that people would not only find out that their employers had been given a memorandum to follow guidelines but that they were given directions and were required by law to obey them and give equality to the handicapped. Leaders of the handicapped groups have time and again indicated that mandatory action was required. This is what the Abella Report demanded. I
Statements by Ministers
would say that mandatory compliance is important in the field of employment.
On November 26, I had the opportunity in the House to comment on a Minister's statement. It was given by the Hon. Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). 1 pointed out to her that action was required, not merely repetition of a press release some six months before that time. In the field of transportation, those working for or with or those who are themselves disabled want to ensure that there are mandatory requirements for carriers to provide equality of access now. They want that now, not later; they want it to be mandatory, not just guidelines.
On this important day we are happy to hear that the Government has made a clear and forceful commitment as to the direction it will take. The Official Opposition will support it. However, it is not enough to suck the bullet; they have to bite it. We want them to bite it and get on with the job of making certain that mandatory laws protect the handicapped. We do not want nice wishes and pious concepts. Therefore, we call upon the Minister to go forth with what he is undertaking. We wish him well. We will co-operate with him in any way we can to further the commendable objectives which he set forth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister on his statement. However, in doing so, I express one regret-and it is not primarily the responsibility of this Minister-that it has taken two years for a response to the UN Declaration. Therefore, rather than having 10 years to do what we hope to accomplish, we will now have only eight. Perhaps that was the responsibility of the previous administration, but nevertheless I think it is worth noting.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, most disabled persons are in a very difficult situation. The need to consult them is obvious. The program and the policies must reflect the urgent needs of those people. The Government must feel a responsibility to keep an open line of communications with their representatives.

With this in mind, I would say that in reading over the Minister's report, I noted a number of places indicating a desire to consult with those who are handicapped. I urge the Minister to do what I am sure he will be doing in any event, and that is, to seek out those who are the representatives of the handicapped like COPOH which has done such magnificent work here and to involve them in the process from the very beginning.
Going beyond that, I suggest to the Minister, if I may be so presumptuous, that in establishing the permanent secretariat, he hire the handicapped. The handicapped could and should make up that secretariat. They would then have a first-hand knowledge of the kinds of problems with which they are going to have to deal. If it has not gone too far yet, and I hope it has


Statements by Ministers
not, I would ask that the Minister take into consideration that recommendation which I offer on behalf of myself and of my colleagues.
I suggest to the Minister that beyond the consultation process with the provincial and territorial officials leading up to the possible convening of a federal-provincial-territorial conference to deal with important issues facing disabled persons, he involve disabled persons in the planning of the conference. Make sure that if the secretariat does, as I have asked, reflect those who are indeed disabled, that they be the persons who undertake the planning and travel across the country to meet with the representatives of provincial and territorial Governments. While doing that travelling, the travel problems confronting the handicapped will become part of the considerations of the conference itself. I urge that that be done.
I would like to deal with the entire question of developing an implementation plan for the outstanding recommendations of the Obstacles Report. I might say that that report is one for which there has been a great deal of support over the years. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who worked so very hard during the deliberations on behalf of those who are disabled, would want me to say that when the implementation plan is being considered, it should be considered by the disabled. Let them be the ones who determine the pace and methods of implementation. Let them be the ones who make the recommendations, because it is in fact much more difficult for someone without a disability to understand the complexities of the issue than it is for a person who has to face the problems on a day-to-day basis.
These are not criticisms of the Minister's report by any means. My remarks are intended, I hope, to give a slightly different focus which will make the exercise that is about to be engaged in a much more meaningful one. As a simple gesture as evidence of the goodwill the Government no doubt feels, I would ask the Minister if he would once again do as I have done in the House of Commons, and that is, to seek from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) one small change to the tax legislation, a change that will eliminate the sales tax on replacement parts for wheelchairs. It is not a big change, neither is it a costly undertaking. However, it is something that we could do right now to show that we are serious. It is something that we could do that would indicate that not only are we getting on with finding new ways but we are going to solve one of the old problems in the process. I would ask the Minister to do that.
I commend the Minister for allotting new money for the program. I think it is fair to say that while it is a substantial amount of money, it will not be enough. It never is, but it is a substantial increase over what the previous administration and even this Government had been allotting over the years. I am positive that with that money, disabled groups themselves will be able to seek out solutions and ways of representing their needs.
On behalf of my colleagues, we welcome the report and ask that the matters I have raised be given careful consideration and be implemented if possible. We ask the Minister to report
back if he finds that some of them cannot be implemented so that we may understand why that is. We ask further that that simple gesture through the tax structure be made early so that people can see that the Government stands for more than just rhetoric. The Minister will have our co-operation in making sure that we get the kind of program that we ought to have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and duty to present four petitions, one from Halifax, Nova Scotia; one from the Bricklayers', Masons' & Terrazzo Workers' International Local No. 1 in British Columbia; a petition from Toronto; and a petition from the Brantford area. All of these petitioners ask the Government to rescind its decision which comes into effect on January 1, 1986, whereby pension income will be considered employment income for unemployment insurance purposes.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty as a parliamentarian to present a petition signed by 10 persons from the National Capital Region who request the Government to withdraw Bill C-70 from the legislative process.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 250 farmers of the electoral constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who urge the Prime Minister to give his personal assurance that none of the agricultural programs will be sacrificed in the free trade negotiations with the United States.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour once again to present three petitions which are concerned with the deindexing of family allowances. The first one is from the Minister's own Province of Manitoba and is signed by a number of people connected with business and professional women's clubs and the St. John Ambulance Association. They are imploring the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances because this deindexation will have a very negative effect on women and families. I also have a petition from Burnaby, Surrey and


Richmond in British Columbia which asks for a reindexation of family allowances, and another one from Vancouver East.
I am glad the Minister is present in the House. We are presenting many, many petitions every day on this subject and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 500 of my constituents who ask that this House reinstate the rail passes for CP Rail pensioners and their survivors.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present signed by residents of both Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Thunder Bay-Nipigon. It is my duty, honour and pleasure given the importance of this issue that I present petitions signed by 150 residents of northwestern Ontario who protest the decision of the Government to deindex the family allowance. They call upon the Government to recognize that the changes which are being made, including those to the child tax credit, will leave even the poorest families worse off by 1990 than they would be if the indexation of family allowances was continued for all. They call upon the House of Commons to maintain the full indexation of the family allowance.


Fernand Robichaud: Again today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the workers of Moncton by presenting two petitions from residents of Caissie Cape, Moncton, and Hopewell Cape. All those people are worried about the current situation in the CN shops; they would like the Government to commit itself by guaranteeing that those jobs will remain in Moncton and will not be transferred elsewhere.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by a number of residents from my riding, other people from the City of Winnipeg and people living in the province of the Minister involved respecting family allowances. The petitioners point out that by the year 1990 even the poorest families will lose as a result of the changes which the Government is putting into place. They also point out that the cut-back with respect to child tax benefits, along with the sales tax increases, will be a heavy burden on middle-income Canadians and that these changes are unfair in the face of the budget hand-outs in terms of tax gains.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to enter a petition from residents of Spadina riding objecting very strongly to the Government's Bill which will reduce the family benefits. They point out that by 1990 this will take $600 million from families with children, including the poorest families. This is on top of sales tax changes and increases that hurt them, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases which hurt low and middle-income people and benefit upper-income people. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty, to present to this Honourable House a petition circulated by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and signed by residents of Fort Frances and Devlin in my riding, who urge the Prime Minister of Canada to withdraw Bill C-70 immediately.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the greater Moncton area. CN is the largest industrial employer in New Brunswick and, in particular, in the Moncton area, with 1,100 to 1,200 workers. Some 600 to 700 job losses will occur as a result of public and private sector losses in income of $32 million in the area as a result of CN's decision. 1 wish to present this petition on behalf of residents in the Moncton area who are concerned that the Government come clean with a statement as soon as possible indicating that the jobs at the CN shops in Moncton will be maintained because of the regional economic importance of these jobs.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 
Mr. Corbett: 1.	How much money is spent on advertising to promote (a) Fundy (4) Kouchibouguac National Parks?
2.	What share of the moneys allotted to advertising national parks is allotted to (a) Fundy (b) all the maritime national parks?


Supply


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1. (a)
None, (b) none. 2. (a) None* (b) 30 per cent.
*The Atlantic region's advertising budget for national parks is not site specific, but is for all parks in the region.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining question stand?
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try and find out once and for all from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) how he is planning to dispose of the Daly Building in my riding. Question No 261 has been on the Order Paper since February 6, 1985.
1 am trying to find out what will become of the Daly Building. The newspapers are full of stories and we would like to know what the facts are. Could the Minister give us an answer, so that we can forget about this question and do something with the Daly Building?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to discuss that matter with the Minister.
1 ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes this day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, just prior to lunch I was saying that the economic mess which presently exists in Atlantic Canada in terms of unemployment
and lack of economic activity did not arise over the last 14 months. In fact, it has arisen over the past 118 years of Conservative and Liberal federal and provincial rule. In fact, the responsibility now rests with this Government to do something about it. It simply cannot escape its responsibility by dumping on the previous Government. The challenge is now with it. In fact, it has embarked on a course which can only be more disastrous because, in fact, it will now attack this great deficit. It wants to attack this deficit having, of course, over the years followed a trend which has moved to individuals and Governments in Atlantic Canada depending on transfer payments. The Government is now going to attack the deficit. It is going to look to the private sector, which is virtually non-existent in Atlantic Canada. It will cut the deficit which can only further exacerbate the situation for Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I notice you are giving me a signal. I wish to close with the words of Elizabeth Beale, who is the Chief Economist for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. She put it very succinctly when she said:
Because of this dependence on government, deficit reduction could have a proportionally more severe effect on Atlantic Canada than elsewhere. Stated intentions in several areas have already given indications of the potential effects of deficit reduction (for example, changes to UI benefits, higher user fees for transportation and agricultural services, reduction of transfers to provinces).
I think she has hit the nail on the head. It means that this Government has got to commit itself in a real way to changing the economic base in Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for his speech. All the citizens of Newfoundland, and myself, have been waiting with bated breath to hear the position of the New Democratic Party on the decision of the current administration to abandon regional development policy in the country. I know that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt is a fairly genuine fellow. He speaks his mind and calls it the way he sees it. So I was particularly delighted that if there were going to be a spokesman for the NDP today in this debate that it would be the Hon. Member. In Atlantic Canada, but in Newfoundland in particular, we have been wondering where the New Democratic Party stands on this issue.
It was with some regret and disappointment that we noticed that despite the very great and real concern of the New Democratic Party for the people of Newfoundland, the leader of that Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) did not have time during the last federal election to visit Newfoundland. Perhaps that is understandable. However, we have been left since that time, until today, with a degree of doubt about the interest and position of the New Democratic Party with respect to federal government policy and its impact on Newfoundland. During the course of the last election campaign not a single hour, day or minute, regrettably, was


spent by the Leader of the NDP in the Province of Newfoundland putting forward the policy of his Party.
That having been said, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt that I appreciate what he said because 1 realize, as he does, that the record of any administration, including previous Liberal administrations, cannot be a perfect one. 1 recognize, as he does, that the statistics held up to the light of day are not numbers to jump up and down and cheer about. However, I hope the Hon. Member will agree with me that current measures are being undertaken by this Government to take away the basic underpinnings of a policy which recognizes regional disparities where they exist and attempts to attack those disparities by providing special incentives.
We speak today about Atlantic Canada, and I wonder if the Hon. Member will agree that the basic policy which is currently being undertaken by this administration is not only going to affect Atlantic Canada but will affect northern Ontario, the eastern part of Quebec, the Northwest Territory and part of western Canada. It will affect areas such as Prince George where I was a few weeks ago. I hope we are going to be successful as Members of Parliament on all sides of the House who come here with a genuine dedication to improve the lot of people no matter where they live, in spreading this message. It is not just an Atlantic Canada problem but a problem for all of Canada. I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment on that particular proposition.


John R. Rodriguez: I thank my hon. friend for asking me a question under the guise of a speech. Let me first say to him in reply to the preface to his question that we have found out that it is not what one says during a political election campaign which counts. It is one's performance in between elections. I want to tell the Hon. Member that in my capacity as chairman of the Atlantic caucus of my Party, I went to Labrador and listened to what the people had to say, which was not unlike what people were saying to me in my own area of northern Ontario.
We recognize that in fact Government has to take a more active role in establishing community development funds. It may be that the Government has to participate more with ordinary citizens in developing the resources for the benefit of people in the community. One of the things we discovered is that often times the decisions with respect to economic development are made here in Ottawa and it takes a long time for the message to get back. I was in Cape Breton not too long ago and I heard of a paramount example of this with respect to Millie's Potato Chips. The gentleman who owns Millie's Potato Chips wanted to build a plant at Port Hawkesbury and applied for a DRIE grant. The decision had to be made here in Ottawa and something like two months elapsed before it got back to Cape Breton. The fellow decided he could not wait any longer and put the plant in Ontario. Decentralization of decision-making with respect to economic development through the various agencies of the federal Government must be paramount. People at the local level must have an input. We do not need to appoint a whole pile of Tory hacks which, in the past,
Supply
used to be Liberal hacks, to these boards which make the decisions.


Mr. Darling:: What about the NDP hacks?


John R. Rodriguez: We believe the local people can make the decisions with respect to economic development. We believe that there should be a provision of funds for co-operatives in community enterprises. That's where it is at. We cannot depend upon a large corporation to come and create jobs. It is . not going to happen that way. It has not happened with Inco. Inco is cutting back jobs in my own area, so we cannot expect that.
We believe there should be reduced taxation for co-ops and community enterprises. We think that is where the incentives should be. We believe that a lot of times individuals in the communities of northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada who have good ideas cannot get financing because the banks want all sorts of ironclad guarantees and collateral. Poor folks in Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario do not have that kind of collateral. We need to have capital made available to ordinary individuals so that they can get into a small business and create some employment.
We believe we can restore the forest lands of Atlantic Canada. I mentioned before how they have been raped. One can trace the history of it. It goes right back to decisions of provincial and federal Governments of the past. We believe there should be $200 million injected into Atlantic Canada to start the restoration process. We believe that there should be a program for co-operative management of private wood lots. That is an activity these people can get into but they do not have the wherewithal to involve themselves. We believe that an investment of $150 million should be made immediately to develop such programs as the salmonid enhancement, the rehabilitation of the natural habitat, and improved marketing. Some of that is already going on in Cape Breton and in St. John's, Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: St. John's is not Newfoundland. It's a very small part of Newfoundland.


John R. Rodriguez: I say to my hon. friend in all honesty that what we need at this point in time has to be a marshall type plan to get Atlantic Canada back on its feet. It cannot be the drop down, fall down theories we have followed in the past. They have not worked because as we created some activity, we found that the greater part of our economy slipped back. We must make a concentrated attack on this problem. No longer can we treat Atlantic Canada as if it is some Third World colony of central Canada. It seems that is what we have been doing. We have been sending it foreign aid and what we need is a thought-out economic strategy with economic development plans attached to it so we can get on with the business of creating employment in that area. That is what people want. They want a job and they want dignity. They do not want hand-outs from the federal and provincial Governments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Well said.


Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on his speech which I believe contained some insight. However, he talked about a martial plan. Instead of sending in the marshall, the problem is that this Government has sent in the sheriff. The sheriff has said: "We are taking back and repossessing everything you have".
Just to put into perspective the resolution which is before us today, let me say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Question Period painted a glowing picture of what is happening with respect to job-creation in Canada. He quoted this from The Globe and Mail: "Creation of 304,000 jobs drives unemployment down". If the Prime Minister had read on to the last four paragraphs, I think he would have put into perspective the resolution we have before us today. As a graphic example of what we are talking about, The Globe and Mail stated:
Still, the silver lining has a cloud. The job creation machine appears to have ignored residents of Canada's hinterlands. Raw figures show that between November, 1984, and last month, most of the new jobs were packed into the country's heartland, while the demand for new workers petered out going either west or east.
If the growth in jobs had been evenly spread across the country, each province would have one share of the new jobs roughly equal to its share of the labour force.
In the past year, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick were the biggest winners.
All got more than their share of the new employment. Together they have almost two-thirds of the labour force, but picked up almost 84 per cent of the new jobs in the past year.
Here is the message I want to get across, Mr. Speaker:
The outermost provinces-British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia-did worst. With 26 per cent of the work force ... they got only 8 per cent of the new jobs.
When the Government talks about the rosy picture across the country in job creation, we have to put it in perspective and illustrate the figures which point out why we have this resolution before the House today.
The people of the Atlantic provinces have always struggled to stay afloat. However, since this Government took power there seems to have been a consistent policy of taking away whatever life preservers we have had. The problem is that there is an ideological inflexibility over there. There is a flaw in the policy which says that somehow the private sector is going to solve all our ills. For the first time in 30 years in this country there is no regional development policy. My colleague from Cape Breton said it was our Party which created the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. That was a victory for regional development. However, there is now in Canada no policy for regional development and that is why the Atlantic provinces are suffering. You cannot inflexibly apply one policy all across Canada. Canada is a collection of regions and the Atlantic provinces have always depended on public sector support to shore up the weak private sector. There is
nothing wrong with putting the private sector front and centre, but in the Atlantic provinces the private sector is weak and there has to be Government involvement. In the past there has been Government involvement but it is absent now. In the meantime, the Government programs we have depended on have been cut back.
Let me start with the Established Programs Financing, transfer payments, because therein lies the greatest tragedy of all. There will be less money going to the Atlantic provinces, including my own, than had been anticipated, hoped for and expected. As a result there will be increased charges for hospitals and post-secondary institutions. Young people, the real hope for Atlantic Canada, will have a tough time getting the education and training they need. In the long run the most tragic cut of all will be that cut in the Established Programs Financing.
I want to look at the cuts in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Something like $25 million will be cut from that Department which is so important to my province. There will be lay-offs in the Department, about 170 people across Canada. Some provinces depend more heavily on the fishery and it is logical to assume that we will probably lose more of those civil servants in the Atlantic than elsewhere in Canada. Therefore, the cuts in the area of small-craft harbours and lay-offs in the Civil Service will add to an already disastrous situation. As well, the issue of factory-freezer trawlers emphasizes again the insensitivity of this Government to what is needed in Atlantic Canada. If this approach to factory-freezer trawlers is allowed to be developed, if more licences are issued, it will have a devastating effect on the northeast coast of Newfoundland which is in my riding. If factory-freezer trawlers are allowed to multiply, the whole inshore fishery along the northeast coast will be devastated, indeed wiped out. The only alternative for these people will be what my colleague from Cape Breton mentioned this morning, an exodus from the Atlantic provinces to elsewhere in Canada. That none of us can tolerate. There are no plans to help the people on the northeast coast who will be dislocated because of these trawlers. There are no programs for retraining, for developing alternatives in the inshore fishery. No examination, no plan, and that is where the Government stands condemned on this whole issue.
The Government has not only not responded to the longterm problems in the fishery, it has not responded adequately to emergencies. In October I raised in the House with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) the disastrous situation in the inshore fishery. There was no crop there this year. The fish did not come inshore. Many people along the northeast coast and in other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador will not qualify for unemployment insurance. In October I told the Minister not to wait until the end of the fishing season, but institute work programs now and give these people a chance to have an income this winter. The Minister waited until the fishing season was over and responded with too little, too late. We received $9.5 million which I estimate is half or less than half of what is needed to do the job


in job creation in the Newfoudland fishery. The Government was told about this but it did not react to a real emergency and for that it stands condemned as well.
In addition, the regular job-creation program is not working. This year the Minister built a training component into what is the successor to the Canada Works program. If you are going to apply for a job-creation project now in Newfoundland or the Atlantic provinces, you have to show you can train people for long-term jobs. It is naive and nonsensical to apply a policy like that to the Atlantic area. There is no way that kind of training program can be built in. The Government and the Minister have to realize that. She has to change the policy, and reinstitute Canada Works if workers in the Atlantic provinces are going to get jobs and have the income they need over the winter. This job development program has to be changed, this training component has to be wiped out, and we have to get back to the job-creation programs we had previously. As well, the situation in youth job creation is bad. I want to read some figures from the Minister's own Department which show that under Challenge '85, Newfoundland young people earned less money per hour, worked for a shorter period of time, and earned less over-all than young people anywhere else in Canada. Young Newfoundlanders earned an average of $1,232 compared with a national average of $2,000. Newfoundlanders earned an average of $4.09 per hour compared with a national average of $4.73. If we add that to the figures I read from The Globe and Mail earlier we can see that there may be an advance in other parts of Canada but it has not happened in Atlantic Canada. Indeed, that area of the country is slipping farther behind. In the meantime, no action has been taken to shore up the economy with public sector support which we so badly need. As a matter of fact, programs which had been announced have been cancelled. For example, a federal prison announced for central Newfoundland has not gone ahead. It was announced one year ago last fall and this is December, 1985. We still have no word on that project. This is the kind of public sector support we need to create jobs in the Atlantic area and that is the kind of project this Government, with its private sector ideology, has cancelled.
The only thing that the present Government is hanging its hat on in Newfoundland, as far as I can see, is the Atlantic Accord. Given the situation now with OPEC and the prospects for world oil prices, the development of Hibernia, as much as I want it to go ahead, is questionable. It is certainly questionable if we see it as the total economic saviour of Newfoundland. Newfoundland may get $200 million a year from the Hibernia project, but the deficit of Newfoundland is something like $300 million a year. If the present Government is hanging its economic hat on the Hibernia development, it will be sadly mistaken. We need the kind of public sector input which my Party put into my province when it was the Government of Canada. It instituted a water system in Port aux Basques at a cost of $6 million, a music school at Memorial at a cost of $2 million, a world-class marine institute at a cost of $47 million, and an ocean industries agreement to help small business get a leg up in going after jobs in the offshore.
Supply
The Liberal Government instituted a tourism agreement at a cost of $14 million to help small business to respond to the increased traffic in the Atlantic area, and a minerals agreement which prompted exploration which resulted in finds such as the gold deposit on the south coast of Newfoundland. That minerals agreement was made at a cost of $21 million. The Liberal Government made the Burin Peninsula agreement at a cost of $28 million which has resulted in the start-up of projects such as the mine at St. Lawrence. There was a rural development agreement which funds incentives by volunteers all over the province. That involved a cost of $18 million. There was also a roads agreement.
Those are the kind of projects, programs, and policies that the Liberal Party had when it was the Government of Canada and that is the kind of public sector support which is absent now. The Government has even cancelled a very important project, the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation. I asked the previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about that and he confirmed that the $15 million which had been set aside to create the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation has evaporated. It no longer exists. The Government has been in power for over a year and we still do not have the vehicle which is so important to northern Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fisheries Products International has just said that it will be getting rid of 23 plants. Many of those plants are in small communities which are very vulnerable indeed. Without support, help, confidence, and money from the Government, there is no way that those plants in those communities can survive. They need the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation which the present Liberal Party proposed but which the Government has not seen fit to proceed with. Indeed, it has seen fit to spend that money elsewhere.
In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, the north is probably the hardest hit of all. The people in the north are usually the forgotten people of Canada. I speak not only of the people in Labrador, but those in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories as well. The deregulation of transportation will mean increased costs for people in the north because they depend so heavily on air transportation.
I would like to point out one particular issue in the north which I believe needs immediate attention by the Government, that is the isssue of taxation of northern benefits. In his economic statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that he would continue the moratorium, that is the nontaxation of northern benefits such as housing and travel until the end of 1985. We are getting very close to the end of 1985 and there has been no statement from the Government as to what it intends to do about the taxation of northern benefits.
This is not a national issue in the country, but the people who live in Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Old Crow, Labrador City and Goose Bay, as well as some people in northern New Brunswick and northern British Columbia are very, very concerned about this particular issue. It particularly affects mining communities such as Farrow in the Yukon. There are


Adjournment Motion
special benefits for people who live and work in the north and the Government must say very clearly that in the future, as in the past, those benefits will not be taxed because, if that happens, it will put an increased economic burden on people at a time when they can least afford to bear it. The Government must measure up to its responsibilities in the north. It is one thing to let the Polar Sea go through the Northwest Passage, but it is another thing altogether to take money out of the pockets of people who live in that area.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in defence of the motion before the House today, I have tried to say that the record of the Government in the Atlantic provinces is, indeed, utterly dismal. The people know it. That is why the polls show that, although there are only four points separating the two Parties nationally, there is a ten-point spread in favour of my Party in the Atlantic Provinces. That seems to me to be as dramatic an indication as any that I can use of the knowledge of the people that the present policies are not going to work and that the Government has failed to live up to its responsibilities. I find it amazing that a Government with such an overwhelming mandate to govern should dissipate that right to govern so quickly.
What the Government is doing to the economy of the Atlantic area is even more serious. If the present Government policies of user-pay, deregulation, cuts in government services and private sector front and centre at all costs are not changed, corrected and reversed, the Atlantic provinces will slide silently into the Atlantic Ocean. If the Government continues on that course, it will see that happen. At the very least, it is ignoring the Atlantic economy, and at the worst, it is goring the economy of the Atlantic area.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis)- Health-Breast implants-Request for stricter control and additional research funds; the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Airports-Automobile rental policy, (b) Request for committee hearing; the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-Prime Minister's speech in Chicago, (b) Magazine publishing industry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
Patrick George Binns: I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). He suggested that the record of the Government is dismal in the Atlantic area. He did mention the Atlantic Accord, but suggested that the Government is hanging its head on that particular measure with little to back it up. I do not think that is the case at all. I think the Government can hold its head high over the Atlantic Accord which is an outstanding agreement when you consider the benefits that will flow to Newfoundland in particular and to the Atlantic area as a whole.
I will mention a few of the other benefits which the Members from Newfoundland may like to be reminded of. Just a few days ago the Minister responsible for CMHC entered into an agreement whereby a new $700,000 senior citizen housing unit will be built in Mount Pearl in conjunction with the Legion in that community. There was a recent announcement on the launching of a new ferry vessel, Caribou, at a cost to the federal Government of approximately $121 million. The Government of Canada made an investment in the equity capital of Fishery Products International to put the company on a sound footing for the future. That was an investment made in the last eight weeks of some $76.7 million. There was an official ceremony celebrating the completion of the highway connecting Conception Bay south to the Trans-Canada highway, which project cost a total of $12.8 million. The federal contribution for that was some $9.6 million. Just recently there was the official opening of the Newfoundland-Labrador Institute of Fisheries and Marine Technology.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Liberal policy.


Patrick George Binns: That was a total cost of $42 million, $29.7 million of which was from the federal treasury. On November 1, there was the official opening of the new music school building at Memorial University. The total cost was $5 million with a contribution from the Government of Canada of some $2 million.
On November 5, there was the official opening of the National Research Council Institute for Marine Dynamics, including the world's largest Arctic vessel research facility and ice tank. The cost to the Government of Canada was $55 million for that one project alone. On November 18 there was the official opening of the Marine Emergency Duty Centre. This is another program costing some $4.2 million.


In that list from the last eight weeks there is nearly $300 million worth of federal contributions to Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is a remarkable and significant record.
Let us look at some programs for fishermen and fish plant workers because all of us know that it has been a difficult season for Newfoundland fishermen. In June, the Government instituted a special program for inshore fishermen who were prevented from commencing the inshore season by unusual ice conditions. That program was instituted to give such fishermen payments equivalent to the payments they would have received under the UI program if it was applicable. As a result, some 5,854 fishermen were assisted at a cost of $4.7 million.
I could go on at some length. I am sure Members opposite would want to be reminded of the commitment which the Government of Canada has continued to make to the Province of Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Previous Government.


Patrick George Binns: Of course, these are events which have taken place within the last eight weeks.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member has a duty to respond on behalf of his Party. However, being the Hon. Member that he is, I also know that he would not want to mislead the House. He is in very great danger of doing that.
I happen to know whereof I speak because I served as the Newfoundland Minister in the previous administration. The reality is that every project he has mentioned, with the exception of the injection into Fisheries Products International, was implemented under the previous Liberal administration. The Caribou project began under our administration. I happened to sign the Conception Bay highway agreement myself. That is a matter of record. The Marine Institute, costing $47 million, was money that was commissioned by us and indeed the construction started when we were the Government of Canada. I was at the opening two weeks ago.
The music school was another project that started when we were the Government of Canada. The National Research Council goes back beyond my time to the time of Don Jamieson. The Marine Emergency Centre was instituted by Jean-Luc Pepin when he was Minister of Transport. All of those projects began under a Liberal administration and that was exactly the point I was making. We are public sector conscious whereas the Government is private sector conscious.
It is important to emphasize that the only thing the Hon. Member mentioned that his Government did was to inject $105 million into Fisheries Products International. It is also important to note that as a result of that, it has drained every single cent of economic development money for all of Newfoundland for this year. There will not be another project. It is important that all those people from Newfoundland who are watching and all those in the Chamber realize that the $105 million comes from an economic development envelope that is put aside every year for every province. As a result of that injection into Fisheries Products International there is no more
Supply
money for economic development projects in the Province of Newfoundland.
If I am wrong, I would like someone opposite to correct me, but I believe that the fact is that that $105 million injected into Fisheries Products International is not new money but money from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion under the economic development envelope for economic projects in Newfoundland. This means that there will be no new initiatives such as the ones we have taken in the past. That is the reality and the truth.


George Roland Henderson: Would the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) comment on the opinion of Mr. Peckford, the Premier of Newfoundland, and give us his opinion on the total effect of the issuance of the factory-freezer trawler licences? How will it affect plant workers in Newfoundland and indeed the inshore fishery of Newfoundland? Does he see that as being a long-term threat to the inshore fishery?
There are those who believe that the capital cost of bringing in factory-freezer trawlers may well put extra pressure on the fishing industry and indeed allow for further quotas for factory-freezer trawlers in order to make them economically feasible in the long term to te detriment of the inshore fishery?


Bill Rompkey: There is no question that it will be an either/or situation. You cannot catch fish twice and you cannot process fish twice. If they are caught offshore, they cannot be caught inshore and if they are processed offshore they will not be processed inshore. There is no question that there is a threat to jobs in inshore plants.
My greatest concern in this whole debate about factory-freezer trawlers is that there has been no enunciation of any long-term plan for the inshore fishery of Newfoundland, for the people in the plants and the fishermen. No one has given any thought to that.
Those are the people who are in jeopardy and they are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups anywhere in Canada. The real tragedy today is that no one in Government is giving thought to what will happen to the inshore fishery, particularly along the northeast coast of Newfoundland. I have not heard one word in this whole debate on factory-freezer trawlers addressing that situation.
There is no question that it is a threat and the Government must live up to its responsibility and make clear its intention for the inshore fishery, particularly for the northeast coast of Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Member for a very articulate and succinct speech, especially in light of the rebuttal wiht the ridiculous claims made by Members opposite. They are so desperate to find something good to say that they had to go back to the Liberal record to find some positive announcements to recant.
I know that the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has made the same inquiries as I have. Has he received any assurance from the Government of Canada,


Supply
despite repeated requests by us and the people living in the area, about the future of the northern fisheries development corporation? This project was conceived under the last administration, during the time he was in Cabinet, but we have heard nothing about it ever since.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) points out an issue that is important to him and myself as well as the people we serve together. As I said in my speech, if nothing is done 23 plants will be cut adrift by Fisheries Products International. Fisheries Products International says that it will be getting rid of these plants because they are non-productive.
If no plan is put in place, those small communities in his riding and mine will not only be vulnerable, their whole economic base is in danger of being destroyed.
We have proposed a public sector corporation, a northern fisheries development corporation. Not only has the Government not put this in place, it has taken the $15 million which we had put aside to fund that corporation and used it elsewhere. That cannot be excused and must be condemned.
My hon. friend and I must continue to fight to establish that northern fisheries development corporation for plants on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador. Only with that kind of support will those people who are very disadvantaged and vulnerable be able to survive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, even after what we have just heard, it should not come as a surprise that I welcome this opportunity to inform the House that the Government has not abandoned the Atlantic provinces, as claimed by the Opposition.
The Conservative Government has now been in office for fifteen months, and I think Canadians know what we have done and the results we have achieved.
Before elaborating on the situation in the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a general overview of the national situation, which in itself constitutes a very encouraging indicator of our economy.
I would remind the House that unemployment has dropped
I.	5 per cent since we came to power. This is remarkable progress indeed, at a time when our economic recovery is still somewhat shaky.
During the first quarter of 1985, the GNP growth rate increased 33 per cent compared with the first quarter in 1984. During the same period, interest rates fell, dropping from
II.	25 per cent at the end of 1984 to their present level which is around 10 per cent. In August 1985, retail sales increased by
12.6 per cent over the previous year, and things are continuing to improve.
These figures are enough to make the Opposition blush with embarrassment, since they are supported by the projections of the Economic Council of Canada, which is announcing ten years of steady growth, moderate inflation and a progressive decline in the unemployment rate.
The ECC is predicting an average annual growth of 3.5 per cent during the next ten years, a rate of inflation of less than 4 per cent and a drop in the unemployment rate which should stabilize at around 7.6 per cent between now and 1991.
And now I would like to get back to what has been done to help the Atlantic provinces. The Government of Canada has signed an agreement with Prince Edward Island on electric power rates. This step involves funding of over $50 million and is aimed at bringing down existing power rates in this province. One of the aspects of this agreement is a provisional, shared-cost subsidiary agreement, with a budget of $8.5 million, of which $6.8 million is being provided by the federal Government, Furthermore, a special advisor has been appointed to explore all possible avenues regarding a long term solution to the Island's energy problems.
This Government has signed agreements on tourism and market development, within the framework of the general agreements. It has also provided $4.5 million to establish a new meat processing plant to replace the Canada Packers plant.
The Government has provided this province with funding totalling $103 million under the Economic Regional Development Agreement.
As for Newfoundland, last spring, the federal and provincial governments signed a joint agreement under which $180 million will be set aside for improvements to Newfoundland's road network. Under the ERDA, $150 million will be injected into upgrading the Trans-Canada Highway and $30 million will be allocated for roads in Labrador. The federal contribution amounts to $112.5 million; in addition, $93 million have been allocated to the Goose Bay airport development project, and a $6.5 million contribution has been used to improve the quality of Channel-Port-aux-Basques municipal drinking water.
All told, under the regional economic development agreement, the federal Government will have invested over $235 million in Newfoundland over a five-year period.
Members of the Opposition also referred to Nova Scotia. In May 1985, eight new members were appointed to the Cape Breton advisory committee to consider ways in which the federal and provincial Governments might promote employment and long-term economic development in Cape Breton.
The Canadian Government has also approved the final project for the construction of a second access tunnel to the Donken-Morien underwater coal deposits at Cape Breton.


Drilling for this 3.5-kilometre tunnel will take a year, at an estimated cost of $16 million. Capital expenditures fall within Devco's current budgetary appropriations and, in line with our terms of reference, the tunnel drilling project attests to the federal Government's commitment towards Cape Breton. It will boost the local economy and create 100 jobs in the Glace Bay region.
Under the regional industrial development program, the Government gave Nova Scotia Pulp Limited about $4 million to upgrade its pulp and paper plant, make its operations more profitable, and thus contribute to maintaining jobs in the region of Port Hawkesbury.
Again in May 1985, DRIE gave a $1.5 million grant to Glace Bay's Highland Fisheries for the construction of a modern fish processing plant valued at $6.3 million. Thanks to that assistance, the plant will have 180 employees before the end of 1985.
In July 1985 the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced Government support payments to complete the federal assistance program made available to Cape Breton under the regional industrial development program and other DRIE projects. These support payments and the Cape Breton investment tax credit which then increased 50 to 60 per cent have turned this region into a haven for investors.
Both Governments agreed last June to act jointly to bring forward various economic development projects under the Canada-Nova-Scotia Economic Regional Development Agreement.
The new action plan proposes cooperative efforts under the two subsidiary agreements on technological transportation and innovation. The signatory Ministers took this opportunity to change the priorities of the ERDA to reflect their views about the importance of consultations with the native people and the visible minorities of the province about ERDA issues which concern them. Indeed, we saw at the recent First Ministers' Conference that these are priority issues for the province. The subsidiary agreements already signed under the ERDA have a total value of $205.5 million, of which the Federal share will be $140 million.
The Cape Breton Advisory Committee created by the two Governments and chaired by Mrs. Theresa MacNeil is a perfect example of federal-provincial cooperation. Last September, the committee submitted a report based on its consultations with Cape Breton residents last summer. The recommendations contained in this report have been carefully evaluated and have already influenced the decisions of the Federal Government. For instance, the boundaries for the Cape Breton tax credit have been extended to the Mulgrave Region in the Southwest, and the benefits of the tax credit have been increased.
Last Friday, on December 6, a new agency called Enterprise Cape Breton was created. Its purpose is to stimulate economic
Supply
development in the region. While this is a federal initiative, the participation of the private sector and the province will be welcome and even essential. Based on the one counter formula. Enterprise Cape Breton will enable eventual investors to be better informed about DREE programs and services, and will operate with a $25 million budget, which is double the budget of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Enterprise Canada will also launch major promotion and marketing programs to attract investments to Canada.
If we look at all these projects, we can see that our federal projects have already begun to create jobs in Cape Breton, as indicated by the announcement of $10 million worth of industrial development and expansion projects.
Last June, Magma International Inc. signed a memorandum of agreement with the Federal Government to locate in Cape Breton. Magma is a company which has been very successful in operating small semi-independent facilities, for instance in Southwestern Ontario. It is considering the construction on Cape Breton Island of a center similar to the one it already operates in Ontario for training in state-of-the art technology.
Again in Nova Scotia, over $1 million have been allocated for repairing the Port Hawkesbury road, and $200,000 for developing an industrial area in Antigonish. Those amounts have been expended under the Canada-Nova Scotia supplementary agreement on the Strait of Canso.
And to promote access to modern technology, a $34 million economic and regional development agreement was signed with Nova Scotia in July 1985 to set up computer and high technology training centers. Ottawa will assume 70 per cent of the cost, with the Province contributing the other 30 per cent.
Again under ERDA, the Federal Government has therefore injected another $140 million in Nova Scotia.
Let me turn now to New Brunswick. A $32 million supplementary agreement was signed in November 1984 relating to tourism, with a $22 million federal contribution. And, yesterday, on December 9, $30 million were allotted for industrial development in that Province, with the signing in Fredericton of an industrial development supplementary agreement. The federal Government will provide $21 million through M1RD, and the Province $9 million.
Under another agreement signed in May 1985 under 1RDP, the Canadian Government will contribute $42 million, $10 million of which are refundable, for the setting up in Newcastle of a coated paper mill. The Acadia Paper Company is being financed by Repap Enterprise Incorporated from Montreal.
That project will provide employment stability to more than 1,600 forest and mill workers, and involves the hiring of 1,000 person-years during the construction phase. An estimated 125 permanent jobs will thus be created.
The Canadian Government has provided that Province with $215.7 million under ERDA.
9350


Supply
Mr. Speaker, from January 1984 to March 1985, 3,100 loans totalling $98 million were guaranteed under the Small Business Loans Act in Atlantic Canada. Under the Industrial Regional Development Program, we have been able to contribute a total of $90 million for 209 projects.
Mr. Speaker, more than any other Government, this Government has promoted an exchange of views and improved relations between the federal Government and the provinces. For the first time in the history of this country, the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee responsible for Regional Economic Development, the Hon. Sinclair Stevens, scheduled regular meetings with his provincial counterparts. Since the first meeting in Ottawa in January 1985, meetings have been held every two months in provincial capitals across the country to discuss the difficult problems of regional development. These meetings provide an opportunity for discussing economic development and for setting up a development policy adapted to the needs of the various regions of this country. These meetings provide a forum for discussing questions such as co-ordinating assistance to small businesses through partial decentralization of the Industrial and Regional Development Program, reducing the number of regulations and the paper burden for small businesses, co-ordinating investment promotion activities and consulting on federal proposals for revising regulations for the transportation industry.
The Ministers responsible for regional economic development have agreed on a workplan for dealing with three broad objectives connected with regional development, namely, attracting and especially maintaining investment in all regions, enumerating obstacles to interprovincial trade as well as the various ways in which it could be enhanced, and preparing a data base on regional development. Two federal-provincial task forces have been created to examine these issues, and their reports will be submitted for consideration by the Ministers at their next meeting in January 1986.
Mr. Speaker, we have never seen the like of the economic potential that exists in the world today. Canada must take advantage of these opportunities and carve out its share of the market.
In concluding, 1 still wonder why Opposition Members are not prepared to invest their energies and work together with the Government to ensure that programs and initiatives produce results as quickly as possible, for the greater benefit of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Concerning the situation in Cape Breton, obviously her speech was written before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) answered a question in the House today. Quite clearly
he stated that very little happened to improve the economy of Cape Breton, or indeed Atlantic Canada, in the last year and a half. It is in that context that I mention her Department obviously wrote her speech yesterday. That she had to rise and read that speech is not good enough for Atlantic Canada. The people of Atlantic Canada are looking for some action from the Government. They are not looking for words. Actions speak louder than words.
On the very important issue of transfer payments to the provinces, I have in my possession a clipping from The Evening Times Globe of Saint John headed "Baxter Blasts Federal Cuts". Mr. John B. M. Baxter, Q.C., the Minister of Finance for the Province of New Brunswick, is reported as follows:
New Brunswick's health and education programs are "at serious risk" under an inflexible plan for slashing $2 billion from transfer payments to provinces advanced by federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson on Wednesday-
Depending on what method Wilson ultimately employs, Baxter says New Brunswick could lose either $60 million or $120 million in health and education transfer payments.
Those are the comments of the Minister of Finance for the Province of New Brunswick. We have heard other Ministers and Premiers from Atlantic Canada state clearly that cuts in transfer payments will affect Atlantic Canada. In fact, they will affect most provinces, but certainly Atlantic Canada.
How can the Hon. Member rise in her place today and say that what the Government has done in the last year and a half is beneficial to Atlantic Canada? How can she justify that? Also I would like her to justify how job-creation programs, such as the new Canadian Jobs Strategy invoked by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), will help my province and the Province of Newfoundland, which is in such bad shape that it will take 10 years of good Liberal administration for it to experience decent economic times?


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: What a dreamer!


George Roland Henderson: How can the Hon. Member say that the new Canadian Jobs Strategy of the Government will be beneficial to my Province of Prince Edward Island when unemployment is the highest it has been since 1980?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the question of my colleague makes me smile. When he talks about a Liberal administration whose benefits we are reaping today, I think he is right. The problem we are experiencing in Cape Breton, indeed in all Canadian provinces, has been created by a Liberal administration which was in office for over 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Quite true.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: If something is now going wrong, particularly in Cape Breton, he might perhaps ask more questions and direct them to the Party he represents.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order, please.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: 1 was asked two questions in this long introduction. The first one was specifically related to Cape Breton.
Surely my colleague knows the special measures taken by the committees representing local interests, the provincial Government, which made their representations to the federal Government. They are now under review and should give some results.
When we talk about concerted efforts and co-operation with the provinces and local interests, it shows that we favour that kind of intervention, and local authorities make recommendations likely to meet the needs of the people.
As to what you refer to as losses, concerning equalization payments, I think it has been pointed out on several occasions that equalization payments had not been reduced, but there has been an indexation readjustment.
If you think the problem is peculiar to your province or to the Atlantic region, I can say it exists as well in Quebec, and that too may very well be due to the former administration which left us with a deficit which Canadians now want us to cut down.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question in light of the fact that she is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Can she tell the House when the people of Cape Breton can expect Phase II of the Sysco plant to be announced?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the matter will be studied and an announcement made in due time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief so my colleague will have a chance to ask a question as well. First I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on her presentation to the House this afternoon. I know the very difficult position she is in, being forced to read the script that has been written by officials of her Department. It is difficult to read from a document one does not really understand, talking about an area about which one knows nothing while giving a speech and trying to make it interesting. I think the Hon. Member has shown a particular degree-


Mr. Horner:: You don't know anything.


Brian Vincent Tobin: When I don't know, I don't rise to make speeches written by someone else. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has shown a particular degree of backbone in attempting to carry this through. Having sympathy for her plight. I congratulate her.
Supply
Nevertheless, because this is an educational time for the Parliamentary Secretary, who I am sure has a genuine interest in Atlantic Canada, I am sure she will one day speak her own mind in the House on matters affecting Atlantic Canada. I say that sincerely.
If the Parliamentary Secretary attended Question Period today, she would have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), in response to a question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), admit in the House in a very quiet tone that indeed the Cape Breton Development investment credit is not all that we would like it to be and that there has not been the kind of response that we wanted to see. The Prime Minister said that we are going to have to review the program.
Given the Prime Minister's admission that the special programs that were created, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, to create a paradise for investors, and given the fact that the Prime Minister himself and not a junior Minister has admitted that that program has failed the people of Cape Breton, will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance now that if the matter will be under review and a more realistic, serious, sober attempt will be made to provide assistance to the people of Cape Breton, that review will be conducted in public in Cape Breton and people living in that region who have ideas, practical life experience and suggestions will be given a chance to be heard? It is obvious that this investment scheme will be scrapped by a Government, the Prime Minister of which has admitted it has failed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Very, very rapidly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. B. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would remind those who think the results of the May Budget have not been all that exceptional that last Friday, Cape Breton Development Investment was set up. We have also had the report by the task force headed by Mrs. MacNeil which made its recommendations. Here again, the Government has demonstrated its desire to ensure that the initiatives to be taken by Cape Breton will produce results. Our objective is to draw attention to the programs that exist today in Cape Breton.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate today for more than one reason. One reason I am pleased is because it is a good and relevant motion and I thank my Liberal colleagues for having moved it today. The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
I had the opportunity to visit Halifax, Wolfville and Sack-ville last week. That was not my first visit there but it was my most recent one. Actually, my great, great grandfather, Daniel McDonald, was a merchant in Halifax and I wanted to go


Supply
back to see how the city was doing. According to the people 1 met there and to the newspapers and other media that I saw, it is not doing quite as well as the rest of Canada.
There are three points to be raised today. I am especially concerned with housing and I was astonished to see the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is responsible for housing quoted as saying that there is no housing crisis in Halifax. What a frivolous statement he made. I will return to that point in a moment.
I was very pleased to see the local action that is being taken by people from those communities to create housing. They are not creating very much housing because their resources are limited but I was interested to see the action that they are taking and I will return to that in a moment.
As someone who is now living in and for two or three generations has belonged to what they call Upper Canada, I was embarrassed to see the financial fix in which Canada has put Nova Scotia. Of course, this is so not only for Nova Scotia but the other Atlantic provinces and I will return to that in a moment. The responsibility for that does not rest only with the previous Governments, it rests with the present one as well.
First, regarding the matter of the crisis, I visited Hope Cottage in downtown Halifax where Father McKenna explained that in 1982, 30,000 meals were given to homeless men; in 1984, 60,000, or double. If there are twice as many meals to be given to homeless men in 1984 as there were in 1982, how can we say that there is no crisis?
In fact, 35 responsible groups from Metropolitan Halifax including church groups, housing societies, health associations, welfare rights groups and the district labour council combined last summer to issue a report on the housing crisis. These are some of the things they mentioned: the cost of a three-bedroom apartment averages between $550 and $750 per month with many higher than that and single rooms cost $80 per week and up. Rents like that can be found in the City of Toronto but what cannot be found in Toronto is the large proportion of people whose incomes do not allow them to pay those prices. There are some but not in the proportion that exists in Halifax. It is pointed out that to afford that sort of accommodation, according to federal standards, a family's income should be between $26,000 and $36,000 per year.
They point out that federal funding for things like non-profit and co-op housing, which is the most reliable form of housing to provide for low income people and for middle income people, has been cut systematically during the last two years. It was cut by 25 per cent in the last year alone by this present Government. Only 252 new units have been constructed in the last five years in the Halifax district.
The crisis is not just a matter of buildings; it is a matter of what happens to the people who are either forced to live in poor buildings or forced to give up other necessities to live in a decent building. They catalogue the results, they summarize them: increased homelessness, families living in one or two rooms, family breakdown, physical and mental health deteriorating, unnecessary hospital admissions where the hospital keeps a child in hospital at great expense to the public because there is no heat or proper sanitary conditions in the home to which the child might be returned, food money getting spent on shelter and the frustration-frustration of the tenants, frustration of the homeowners in dismally poor homes, frustration of the workers, the human service workers, who are trying to hold the fabric of society together because they do not have the resources.
It has been demonstrated statistically over and over and it has been repeated in this House that the Atlantic provinces do not have the resources available to use for their own benefit. It is not that they have no natural resources. It is not that they have no good workers, willing and capable workers, but that they do not have the benefit of their natural resources and their labour resources. One measure of that is the figures from Statistics Canada which tell us that in Nova Scotia the income per capita is only 78.5 per cent of the average for all of Canada. Now, at that, they are better off than the other three Atlantic provinces. That is a long way down from average. The earned income per capita is only 74 per cent. Again, Nova Scotia is better off than New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, but it is only three-quarters of the average of Canada. Unemployment insurance payments per capita are 141 per cent of the national average, almost half as much again as is needed for the rest of the country. Again, the other provinces are in worse condition but Nova Scotia's condition is bad enough. The subsidies that are required per capita are 295 per cent of what is required in the other provinces. I will come back to that point again; but I want to mention the local drive, the local energy, in Wolfville.
I was shown what they call the small houses. These are houses locally designed. They are not CMHC houses; they are locally designed. There is one large room. They call them hearth houses, one large room where people cook, eat, and generally live and recreate and there are two small bedrooms, 600 square feet roughly. Now, by Toronto standards, that is a very, very small house. These are houses for people who are living outside Wolfville. They are living up in what they call the Mountain. They are replacing houses that were equally small but dreadfully, dreadfully poor houses with the wind blowing through, houses with one wood stove and a stove-pipe for a chimney set too close to the door. In wintertime there are not only tragedies of people who freeze for lack of fuel but people who burn because of the rickety stove in their house because they cannot afford better. Lack of decent water supply, lack of decent sewage arrangements. In these new small houses they have decent water supply. They have decent sewage arrangements. The houses are airtight, the heating equipment is modern and it has a brick chimney. The house is safe, comfortable and clean. It is of a design that many of the poeple there are used to. It is not only in Nova Scotia. When I lived in the Gatineau Valley for three years, 1 found that most of the farmhouses pratically worked with that design. They had a parlour but they never used it except when the minister came. He only used it once, found it too cold and then spent


with the rest of the family his time in the kitchen or diningroom. It is a good local effort and it did not cost the CMHC one cent. They neither used CMHC money, a CMHC guarantee nor a CMHC design. It was guaranteed by the local government.
In the city I saw Adsum House, a refuge for women. If you read the newspapers in Halifax you know it is badly needed, Mr. Speaker. I take my hat off to the people who keep that house going on a dreadfully small budget.
I saw co-ops, co-ops with 40 or 50 units that had been built in the last few years and one of them just being built, Seaview Co-op, again, with a great deal of local labour. In that case they had some help from CMHC but, as I say, that help has been declining.
The local people are trying to do what is needed. As I said before, they are in a condition in which it is not possible for them to get the full benefit of their local resources, whether it is natural or human. I want to demonstrate that in the case of one shocking example, the shell homes in Sackville. These are homes that were built a dozen or so years ago with CMHC initiation. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation built a shell and then conveyed it to a future homeowner on the understanding that the homeowner finish the shell inside and out, furnish it and so on. They are called shell homes. The roofs were so badly built that they are falling apart. They are rotting. They were built with moisture barriers above and below. There is no ventilation and they are rotting. I stood in the bedroom and looked at the plank that had been put in to hold up that part of the roof. The roof was sagging on each side of the plank. When I looked outside the roof looked like a ploughed field. This is one of 23 houses on that street, on that block. These were built under CMHC direction, that is, by Ottawa. They were inspected, so to speak, so we are told. Homeowners told me about seeing the day they came to take over the house and the inspector drove out, never walked close to the house, simply met the builder in his car out on the road and signed the final document of approval. He had never inspected the buildings then or before.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are saying that it is shameful. I agree. I am particularly ashamed because the company that built those houses is a Toronto company, or was, before it went broke. There was a rip-off. Quite plainly there was a rip-off by that company building a substandard house and making whatever arrangements resulted in no inspection, getting clearance from CMHC for what it did and sticking the local homeowners with the garbage and, eventually, with the bills because now they are having to pay $10,000, $15,000, $18,000 to put on a new roof. One who was waiting for negotiations with CMHC waited too long and the roof fell in on her while she slept. She had to put a new roof on without any assistance from CMHC. Only three years ago one of these houses was resold. CMHC renewed its certificate of approval for that building which it knew was rotten. The officials of CMHC knew the building was rotten, mainly the roof, but not
Supply
only the roof. There were problems with the windows, the doors and the floors. If we take away the roof, the walls and floors, the house is all right but one cannot live in it. CMHC knew it was rotten yet it gave a certificate of approval to deceive a co-op into buying that unit from the former owner. Therefore there was a connivance between the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Toronto builder to cheat the people of Sackville. This concerns not only Sackville but houses in other provinces. We do not know where. CMHC knows, but it is not telling. We do not know how many shell homes were built and how many people were caught in that shell game which CMHC mastermined.
Those people are mostly poor. One of them said he had to double his mortgage to put on a roof. Another lady had applied for a RRAP grant but could not get it because she is too poor. Her husband has nothing but a disability pension. She could not repay the loan part so she is not entitled to receive the grant part. How she is going to put a new roof on her house, no one has told her. But the final crunch in this disgrace is that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), responsible for housing and for the CMHC, is copping out. In March the local Member of the Legislature wrote to him about the problem. In April the Minister of Labour responsible for CMHC, thanked him for his letter and said that senior officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing had been requested to conduct an investigation into the problems outlined in the letter, including the aspect of CMHC responsibility for inspection of the houses. He said: "They will be contacting your office to obtain the names and addresses of home owners that are known to you". He also requested that the corporation examine mechanisms and programs such as may be available to provide assistance to the home owners. He said: "I expect to be able to provide you with the results of our investigations by early June". That was the Minister's signed promise. He never lived up to it. On June 18, Mr. Gordon Walt of CMHC in Ottawa telephoned the local MLA to tell him that a formal letter would be sent to him within the next two weeks in response because the inspections had been completed and it was agreed that the houses were in poor condition, particularly with design and maintenance problems. On August 8, the MLA, Johm Holme, wrote again to Mr. Gordon Walt. He said: "During our conversation of a few weeks ago, you indicated you would shortly be forwarding to me a copy of the interim report on the problem with shell housing in Sackville, Nova Scotia". He continues: "I've learned from Mr. Green in the Halifax CMHC office that he has not yet received the report but that the case has been referred to Vickie Garland of Social Housing for Block Funding". But still no report.
On August 15, Mr. Walt writes back to Mr. Holme. He says: "I have requested that Mr. McKnight's office reply directly to your August 8 letter which has been forwarded to him". On September 11 there is still no report. But Sylvain Lasnier, a special assistant to the Hon. Minister of Labour writes to Mr. Holme on behalf of the Minister: "I wish to


Supply
acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 8 concerning new houses built under the shell housing program. You can be assured that your correspondence would be brought to the Minister's attention at the earliest opportunity". I do not know where the Minister has been since August 28 but it would seem that he has not been in his office because he has not responded. On August 28, in fact, Mr. Holme wrote again to the Minister. He said: "It's my understanding from talking to Mr. Walt and other CMHC officials that the investigation and preliminary report were completed in early June". He asks for the report which the Minister-not an official-had promised him. On October 17, Mr. Holme writes again to the Minister: "Further to my correspondence of that date, I would like to inform you of a situation of which I've only recently become aware". He mentions a new development regarding that co-op house. He asks again for the report which the Minister had promised he would have in June.
Finally, there is again a letter from John Holme, MLA, on November 5 to the Minister: "In addition, I again ask that your Department provide me with a copy of their report prepared by your staff on the problems which exist with shell housing in Sackville". As of last Wednesday, no report had been received by John Holme. In other words, the Minister has decided it would be wiser not to issue the report he promised. He has offered a miserable $50,000 to put the roofs on 23 houses. That is $2,000 for a $10,000, $15,000 or $18,000 roof for poor people who were not responsible for its condition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Horner):: I am terribly sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has elapsed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Can I just finish briefly, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Horner):: Yes, you may.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What I wanted to say is that is the situation up to date at present. This Government, which the Progressive Conservative Party inherited and which enjoys spending the loot in all the ways Government spends the loot, has inherited the debt and obligation to put the roofs back on these houses in Sackville and in other parts of the Maritime Provinces.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Let me begin where he began, by pointing out that the motion before the House relates to economic opportunities for Atlantic Canada. I want to say two things. First, the Hon. Member has not addressed in any way, shape or form the serious matter of equal opportunities for Atlantic Canada. Instead, he related to us his trip in which he visited two of the wealthiest areas of the Atlantic Provinces, namely, the City of Halifax and the Town of Wolfville. He indicated the dire straits in which people found themselves in those urban centres. I want to say to this man who emerges from the heart of the City of Toronto that we in Nova Scotia do not think that the City of Halifax is in the dire straits which the Hon. Member apparently saw. In fact, those who traverse Yonge Street and the other parts of the City of Toronto, would probably welcome the opportunity to come to the City of Halifax and see the beauty and
splendour and magnificent development which has taken place there within the last eight years. Particularly since the advent of the John Buchanan Government in the Province of Nova Scotia, the city has actually blossomed. Hotels are constructed, freeways have been built. The city is in magnificent shape and is acclaimed by one and all to be one of the most magnificient cities in North America.
I would like the Hon. Member from the City of Toronto to stand up in this House of Commons and say that the City of Halifax does not compare in every way and in every detail with the City of Toronto or any other city in North America. I would like to ask him if his point was to discredit the area. The Town of Wolfville, the home of Acadia University, is one of the nicest towns in the whole of eastern Canada and does not deserve to be maligned in that way by the Hon. Member.
I simply want to ask the Hon. Member what does he know about Howland Drive in Sackville after a two hour journey up and down the street? What has he done? What has he written to the Minister responsible for housing? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what he and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party have done to the residents of Howland Drive, those unfortunate people who have a real problem which requires a real solution. They have made the case public. It is a kind of living off the avails of misfortune. It is the kind of thing the New Democratic Party has practised in this House and across this country since Adam was a boy. That is its point. It picks up destitute people, fans their case across the country and then tries to take credit for resolving it. The very fact they bring it to the public's attention in that way prevents a solution. What happens to a public servant when you accuse him of all kinds of wrongdoing like the Hon. Member for Spadina did in this Chamber and as his colleague, John Holmes, did in Nova Scotia in the media? The civil servant becomes defensive, refuses to co-operate. They take legal action, consult lawyers and say they cannot accept responsibility for this horrible situation. That is what happens. The matter becomes a stalemate and you cannot get a favourable answer from the official concerned. They deny any knowledge of it.
The case the Hon. Member mentions arose in 1972 and involved Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, as he said, it was a Toronto contractor who was the author of this terrible misfortune. He disappeared, probably into the confines of Spadina, and cannot be found. These other people are left with the problem. However, some of us are working diligently to provide a solution notwithstanding the posturing of people like John Holmes and the Hon. Member for Spadina. We want to resolve the problem, not live off the avails. Answer that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer the Hon. Member on several points. He accuses me of hobnobbing with the well-to-do as well as meeting the poor. In fact, 1 met some of both. I made no comment on the general nature of Halifax. However, I did find that the Mayors and Wardmen, four of them, of Metroplitan Halifax agreed there is a housing crisis.


They agreed with the housing coalition. Of course the Hon. Member is then in a spot. He has to back his Minister who says there is no crisis. However, I said nothing about Halifax and Dartmouth and other cities which is not being said by people such as the mayor, the leading clergy, responsible academics, homeowners, tenants and the homeless in those cities.
As to exposing the facts about shell homes and shell games in Sackville, the Hon. Member has acknowledged this problem came to light in 1972.


Howard Edward Crosby: Originated.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I heard from homeowners there about their efforts to try and get an answer from the Hon. Member, their MP, and how he turned them off and snubbed them. I understand why the Hon. Member is very defensive. He knows he has not done his job as their Member of Parliament. He knows his Minister has let them down and broken his promise to issue a report. He is thoroughly embarrassed by the fact his Government is just as irresonsible as the Government which preceded it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Not as irresponsible as John Holmes.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The only way he can cover up is to make a thundering speech about someone who wants to get a legal defence and suggest that the rotten contractor, whose address is in Willowdale, must be hiding out in Spadina. Quite possibly he is. He went broke and we have a lot of poor people in Spadina. I am not afraid to admit we have poor people in Toronto. The point I was trying to make, and I am sorry the Hon. Member was so frantic that he would not get the point, is that money which should have been spent to fully benefit some people in Nova Scotia was instead partly drained away to Toronto not only by a shady contractor but by an irresponsible CMHC for which the present Minister has accepted full responsibility. Therefore, he cannot get out of paying his moral debts.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I usually accept criticism gladly but I do not like to accept misrepresentation of the facts. 1 know that could not possibly be deliberate on the part of the Hon. Member so I will offer the further comment that we have been working diligently with the homeowners on Howland Drive to solve their problem.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is not what they said.


Howard Edward Crosby: What prevents solution of the problem is the fact that the officials of CMHC will not admit any of the facts which the Hon. Member presented to the House today. However, I will be very glad to take his allegations-he used the words "cheat" and "malice"-and present them to officials of CMHC. Perhaps, given what appear to be outlandish statements on the part of the Hon. Member for Spadina, officials of CMHC will be required to search their records and their consciences to determine whether or not they ought to acknowledge more responsibility. However, for the Member to
Supply
stand in this House and accuse any Member, and particularly the Government as a whole, of not recognizing their obligations when he well knows it is the officials of CMHC who deny any responsibility-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Where is the report that was promised eight months ago?


Howard Edward Crosby: The Hon. Member well knows the status of CMHC. It is probably one of those many Crown corporations like Petro-Canada and CBC which are constantly defended by Members of the NDP. They constantly demand that these Crown corporations maintain their independent status and freedom from political intervention. That is why the Minister cannot call the shots. It is the officers in the corporations who are calling the shots and I object to that.


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), moved earlier today, would see the House condemn the Government for abandoning the people of Atlantic Canada and for a lack of political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities. I believe the Hon. Member had his tongue in his cheek while speaking. If he did not, perhaps he should have, because I know that he knows that this Government has done an awful lot toward fostering economic development in the Atlantic region over the last 15 months. In fact, the Conservative Party is fully committed to development of the Atlantic region and my province in particular. I am very pleased that in just over one year we can point to a great deal of success in the development of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic region.
One of the first items of priority for our Government in Atlantic Canada, and P.E.I. in particular, was to overlook the formula of the Hon. Member's Government concerning equalization payments to the poorer provinces. Despite the fact that Liberal legislation would have seen us in a very serious situation because of declining equalization payments, our Government overlooked the formula and added money to the pot. We recognized that the Atlantic provinces needed the financial assistance, which should have been there anyway, to ensure they continue with full economic development. Prince Edward Island alone received some $2 million we would not have otherwise received only through the good graces of the Conservative Government on this side of the House.
There were many other issues addressed in the last year. To start off with the fishery, I was very pleased that the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans moved quickly to resolve a long-standing problem which had not been addressed by the former Liberal Government. We were denied crab licences for years and years despite successive requests to Liberal Ministers of the day. Can you imagine a province in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, completely surrounded by water, with a crab resource off its shores and the Government said no, we could not have access to that fishery? The Conservative Minister quickly redressed that problem last fall. He gave us 16 exploratory permits and that led to landings of approximately one million pounds of snow-crab. That translates into a lot of economic returns for my province. It meant jobs for


Supply
fishermen, their helpers on the boats and plant workers on shore. Those plant workers were not just in P.E.I., they were in neighbouring provinces such as New Brunswick. Based on the success in year one I think we will see this Government continue to aid that fishery in our province because the resource is there. I know that that is not a major cost to government, but it is simply a matter of doing justice to the provinces.
Today opposition Members bewailed reductions in transportation services. I would like to speak for a few minutes about some of the things that have happened in my own constituency which indicate that transportation services and facilities have not all been reduced as has been suggested by Hon. Members. For example, after the election last fall the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) moved quickly to ensure that we had additional ferry crossings from Wood Island, P.E.I., to Caribou, Nova Scotia. At that time there was a crisis in terms of getting agricultural products, highway material, and many items required by industry generally, from Nova Scotia to P.E.I. The additional crossings were allowed at considerable expense to the federal treasury.
That was not all, Mr. Speaker. During the winter months negotiations continued between the Department and Northumberland Ferries Limited, the carrier, and as a result we had better service last summer. There were additional crossings between P.E.I. and Nova Scotia which produced direct economic benefit to my constituency as well as the entire province. When the ferries are not running or are making less crossings, we feel the impact immediately. When the ferry runs open up, our economy opens up. Tours can go in and out and people can access markets more easily. The Government has shown leadership in that area.
Not only has the Government improved service, but it has entered into negotiations with Northumberland Ferries for the construction of new vessels for that run. Currently negotiations are under way which could result in two 150-car ferries installed for the run between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. That would be a tremendous economic benefit to my province.
Another transportation matter which is important to the constituency of Cardigan is that the Government, through the Minister of Transport, approved a $5.4 million contract for the reconstruction of the Georgetown wharf which was burned a few years ago. That wharf is very important to the eastern end of the province. Georgetown is a deep-water harbour used to load potato boats and pulp boats. It is also used by the Georgetown shipyard for repairing vessels which dock at the wharf. The port is used to unload asphalt, oil, and gas for a local oil company. That initiative, which was delayed, postponed, and pushed around with a long stick by the former Government, was acted upon quickly by the Minister of Transport. He has come up with funding for that very important project. In addition, he has approved the expenditure of $2 million in the town of Surrey for expansion of its wharf
facilities. That is another benefit to the transportation industry and the fishing sector.
The Government has also assisted the agricultural industry. The hog industry in Prince Edward Island has been in crisis due to the fact that our main processing plant, a Canada Packers operation, was due to be closed by the owners. The plant was an antique, unable to keep up to standards and inspections which was losing money year after year. The provincial Conservative Government moved quickly after the decision by Canada Packers to ensure that the plant did not close and that our hog industry would not suffer serious consequences. It moved quickly in concert with producers of hogs and beef cattle, but it could not get the co-operation of the former Liberal Government.
I am pleased to say that once the federal Government was elected serious negotiations began between the province, the producers, and the federal Government. Those negotiations resulted in $4.5 million of federal money being spent for the construction of a new plant which is now nearing completion. That plant will be paid for by hog producers, beef producers, and the province. The plant will actually be operated by Canada Packers under an agreement to manage and market the product from that plant. That has enabled us to consider expanding our hog industry and, more important, it has enabled us to save the existing industry.
I would like to mention a few more economic initiatives so that people will not get the idea that only a few things have happened. In the last 15 months $6.8 million has been made available to P.E.I. for industrial competitiveness programs. There has been an expenditure of $3.2 million for IRDP offers. A commitment in the amount of $10 million has been made to the Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown. There has been an allocation of $7.3 million for a new terminal building at the Charlottetown airport. There has been an allocation of $1.8 million for the dredging of the Summerside harbour so that it can receive potato boats necessary to export our process. There has been an expenditure of $.35 million to establish the Eastern Ventures and Development Corporation in my constituency which is now providing funds to enable small businesses to start up. There has been a provision of $8 million to CFB Summerside in order to establish a mess and hospital facility. Federal money amounting to $5.8 million has been allocated under a new tourism agreement which will allow us to continue to build on the tourism base which already exists in the province. Five million dollars has been spent on marketing and $5.2 million has been spent on industrial milk assistance. There has been a $7.5 million expenditure on fisheries and a $13.6 million on forestry.
That is all federal money committed by the Conservative Government to ensure that jobs are created in P.E.I. It is just one more indication of the fact that we have not, in any way, shape, or form, abandoned economic priorities in Atlantic Canada.
I have not mentioned the big item yet, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative Government acted on a commitment made by our Leader prior to the election to address the very serious


problem of electrical energy costs in our province. P.E.I. has been plagued for years by the highest electrical rates anywhere in Canada. The Liberal Government refused to help the province to address that problem. 1 sometimes think that was because it did not want the provincial Conservative Government to get any credit for being able to get such an agreement. Although I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, I think that economic development was being sacrificed for political credit. I hope that this Government never stoops to such a low.
This fall an historic agreement was signed. It will create jobs because lower electrical energy costs mean that our industries can be competitive. Some $50 million has been allocated to the federal-provincial agreement. That will offer up to 40 per cent assistance to manufacturers and processors who will be able to increase their industrial competitiveness. Over all, consumers of electrical energy will benefit by approximately 20 per cent.
Job creation has been talked about by Members opposite all day. They have suggested that jobs are not being created in Atlantic Canada and that the Government has abandoned its commitment for the creation of jobs. Once again, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Government has moved away from the old band-aid approach of job creation. Job creation funds have been restructured so that we will no longer have make-work projects and dead-end jobs but will be able to assist people who want to be trained for permanent jobs in the private sector and want to assist in the growth and development of our economy. We have committed equal dollars to the training and development of unemployed Atlantic Canadians.
Last summer, Challenge 85 was introduced. That was an important variation of the old summer job-creation projects. For the first time substantial money was made available to the private sector to employ people. Some of that money has led to more permanent work. It has provided students with training in the private sector which will give them opportunities in the future. That is a substantial departure from the old job creation projects which were simply government projects that led nowhere and had no lasting benefit.
1 just mention the new Canadian Jobs Strategy as well. An agreement was signed between the federal and provincial Governments for an approach to economic development and job creation in the Atlantic area. That was unheard of under the former Liberal Government. Some 1,000 projects have already been approved in the Maritimes. Contrary to opposition statements, it is clear that we have not abandoned job creation in Atlantic Canada. One only need look at the Statistics Canada figures for proof. In July this year, Prince Edward Island had the largest labour force ever. There were some 64,000 people in our labour force. That does not suggest a migration from the province as suggested by the opposition earlier or abandonment of the province. It shows more health in our economy than ever before.
Supply
Even though there was high unemployment in November, which we do not want to endure, it is important that we look at all of the statistics. There were 57,000 people in the labour force which is up by 3,000 over 1984. Employment was also up by 1,000 people over November, 1984. Our participation rate was up by 1.7 per cent. These figures which are similar for the last 12 months show that more people are working. The labour force is increasing, there is greater involvement in our economy and more economic activity is taken place. Our Government has had a good record, especially in its first year, after so many years of Liberal neglect of Atlantic Canada.
I am not pretending that problems do not exist in my province or the Atlantic area. I will not begin burying my head in the sand and suggesting that all is well and good. We intend to address those problems just as we did with respect to those items I mentioned earlier.
There is no question that we have problems with agriculture. Today, some 24 tobacco farmers from my constituency of Cardigan were present on Parliament Hill and in the House. They were here because they are concerned about the tobacco industry in Canada, particularly in Prince Edward Island. They are considering the advantages of establishing a national marketing agency.
I believe it is important that I point out that the Government acted early to amend the National Farm Products Marketing Act to enable tobacco to be included among the commodities where a national marketing agency could be established. That development has been held up by a court injunction. However, I believe that justice will prevail and the growers will be able to make the right decision in regard to the tobacco industry in the months ahead. I look forward to closely working with them.
The other day I rose under the provisions of Standing Order 22 to speak to the House about the pending financial disaster facing our tobacco producers. I suggested to the Government that growers will have to be compensated for loss of productive capacity. I will continue to press the Government on this important issue.
Similarly, our potato growers are experiencing serious difficulties, with three years of prices well below the cost of production. In fact, it cost roughly 6 cents to produce a pound of potatoes but our growers are only getting 2 cents to 2.5 cents for their commodity. It would not take very long for even the strongest producers to run far into the red and border on the verge of bankruptcy. Indeed, some have already gone bankrupt.
The federal and provincial governments, along with the growers, must work diligently to ensure that the potato industry in my province does not collapse. The potato industry is the backbone of the Prince Edward Island agricultural industry. When one thinks of Prince Edward Island, one thinks of potatoes and lobsters. Thank goodness that lobsters are strong this year because potatoes have not been strong for three years. It is a serious situation and I intend to work side by side


Supply
with the growers in the potato industry to ensure that they get the kind of assistance that is necessary.
Even today, representatives of the P.E.I. potato industry met with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Once again, the Government is showing its concern for the province. I believe that it will act by providing appropriate assistance in the very near future. The opposition is wrong. The Government has not abandoned Atlantic Canada but has perhaps done more in one year than the last 10 years of Liberal administration.
If the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond reflected on his motion for a moment, he would probably withdraw it, realizing that he has made a serious error. If he will not withdraw it, perhaps he will amend his motion to condemn the former Government rather than the present Government for abandoning Atlantic Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is the second time today that the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns), in searching desperately to find an example of positive programs that have been undertaken by the current administration, has had to reach back to the days of the Liberal administration. In the case of Newfoundland he read a list of six projects, all of which were undertaken by the previous Government.
In the case of Prince Edward Island, he talked about the veterinarian college, the Charlottetown airport, the move of Veterans Affairs, the dredging of Summerside Harbour and about CFB Summerside. All of these projects were initiated under the able representation of my colleague, and seat-mate, the Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).
Members opposite could learn a lesson from him. As a Member of the Government and a Government supporter, he was never one to sit by silently when policies were being contemplated that were not in the best interest of his constituents. It might come as a shock to back-benchers opposite, particularly Members from Atlantic Canada from whom we have not heard, that Members of Parliament such as the Member for Egmont understood that while his loyalty and responsibility was to the development of the nation, he must speak with a particular voice for the people of his riding. He did so even when he found himself in conflict with the Government of the day. That is why we have such a list of progressive and positive projects which have contributed significantly to the Province of Prince Edward Island. I should say, with a degree of modesty, that the same is true in the Province of Newfoundland.
The motion today reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its abandonment of the people of Atlantic Canada in its demonstrated lack of political will to provide jobs and other economic opportunities to the people of that region.
Ever since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) delivered his economic statement, or mini-Budget, to the House in November, 1984, the policy in this country has been to move toward the notion of user pay. This is a notion which for the first time in decades espouses the belief that we are no longer willing to pay a price to ensure that all Canadians, no matter
where they live, no mater what their economic circumstances, shall have certain basic rights and services afforded to them by the national Government. The policy being enunciated by the Progressive Conservative Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), follows a philosophy that the price of providing basic equality for Canadians wherever they live in this country has suddenly become too high.
We have a Government that is going to cut by way of transfer payments not luxury items, not four-lane highways, not tourism development dollars but education and health care. We are saying to the people who live in the poorest provinces of Canada that they no longer should expect to move in those two fundamental primary areas toward a sense of equality with people who live in the wealthier parts of this country, quite the opposite. "You should expect if you live in an area of disparity, of high unemployment, an area with a relatively low degree of wealth, that services will degenerate, regress. People should check with their fathers and grandfathers, their mothers and grandmothers and find out what it was like 30 years ago because we are taking you back with this policy of the Government."
In 1976 a Member of Parliament stood in this House and talked about his concern that the commitment of the Liberal Government of the day toward regional development was being diminished. He said:
It is beyond my comprehension how any Government can restrain expenditures in an area of the country which has an unemployment rate of 13.9 per cent. It is, in fact, positively cruel and inhuman for any Government to apply a restraint policy equally across this country as though every section of it is the same. It may be a policy of restraint that is quite apt for provinces like Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, perhaps where are now high employment figures but is not proper to apply it blindly to Newfoundland which has an unemployment rate of almost 14 per cent.
Those words were spoken in 1976 by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the former Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Justice. He was talking about Newfoundland with an unemployment rate of 14 per cent and saying that the province could not afford a policy of restraint.
That 14 per cent unemployment has now become 20 per cent. The roar of the Member for St. John's West in opposition to Government restraint and cut-backs at 14 per cent in 1976 has now become a whimper, a pathetic whimper of approval for restraint and cut-backs at a time when my province is experiencing, nine years later, unemployment of 20 per cent, and unemployment on the increase in the last 14 months since this Government has taken office.
What does the Government do? It wields a surgical scalpel. It cuts. It has gone through the fat and the meat. It is into the bone, and still it cuts deep into the marrow, Mr. Speaker. What do we mean? In Newfoundland we talk about marrow. Do we mean that the people in Newfoundland can no longer afford to have two cars? Is that what we mean? No, Mr. Speaker. It is not what we mean. That is not marrow. That is fat. Do we mean that the people of Newfoundland can no longer afford to buy three Canada Savings Bonds so will only


buy one? They cannot afford any right now, but that is not marrow either. That is also fat. The fat of the land is something we only dream about these days in the Province of Newfoundland.
When I say that this Government's economic scalpel has cut right to the bone marrow in the Province of Newfoundland, what I mean is that Newfoundlanders are beginning to lose hope. They are being swept up in a tide of cynicism, anger, frustration and hopelessness. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are becoming convinced that they are the human disposables in a society being crafted by a Government that bows down before the altar of market forces, in a world that must conform to the theology of user pay and to a throw away society. There is nothing so tragic as a people without hope.
There can be no greater waste anywhere in our society than in a young mind afflicted with the curse of cynicism. There are too many tragic people in my province. There are too many good young minds that have been poisoned by the frustration and anger that comes with cynicism.
You know the cynic, Mr. Speaker. Every Member in this Elouse recognizes a cynic when he sees one. He is the young man or young woman who does not trust anybody, the person who believes that nothing he or she can do will change anything, the person who believes that everyone is out for himself or herself. The cynic is seduced by the option of copping out, seduced by the option of sitting on the sidelines and condemning all of those who would attempt to chart their own course and who attempts to fasten the fabric of society in which they live.
The message of the Government is to cut, cut and cut some more. If you are patient enough, if you bow down before the altar of market forces and believe in the philosophy of user pay, one day down the road, somewhere, God knows when, it will all be all right, you simply have to have faith.
As this Government begs for faith, the ranks of the cynics are swelling and we are losing the most important resource this country possesses, the good young minds, the heart and soul of the country, which is eating itself in frustration and anger in a sense of hopelessness.
I say to the Government, as has been said to the Government by the Conservative, same stripe Premier of Nova Scotia, by the Conservative same stripe Premier of Newfoundland, by the Conservative same stripe Premier of Prince Edward Island, by the Conservative same stripe Premier of New Brunswick, by opposition leaders in all four of those provinces and by the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce, the Transportation Commission, and Economic Council, indeed the voice of the people of Atlantic Canada, that this policy is not going to work.
The people of Atlantic Canada unquestionably would prefer to live in a society where they would not need to have a hand-out, and would unquestionably prefer to be giving, contributing to the pot that sits at the centre of the country, not depending upon the wealth of those elsewhere. Until that day arrives, until we find in a very complex and difficult world, a
Supply
changing world, the kind of solution that allows us to make the contribution we want to make to the nation as a whole, do not in the name of some ideological political philosophical doctrin-naire position about the market-place take away from Atlantic Canada the underpinning of our economy, socially and economically. Do not say to our young people, those who just want a chance to have the dignity of a job and the dignity of a paycheque, that they are part of a disposable society. That is the greater tragedy being inflicted upon Atlantic Canada with the economic measures of this administration.
I give way in the hope that my colleague the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) will be able to add his voice to this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on the last point made by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) I will speak for only 10 minutes and allow the remainder of the time to go to one of our colleagues.
I rise in this debate not as someone new speaking on opposition days with concern about Atlantic Canada because when the previous Liberal Government was in power our caucus was making exactly the same kind of resolution in the House. Many of the items I will speak about relating to Government neglect, taxation policies and the way the Government's actions have impacted on the people of Atlantic Canada are the same types of things that I was saying four years ago in a similar debate.
The problems in Atlantic Canada are not new. Historically they have not been caused by any one Government. However, the people of that region are legitimately concerned about them. Their concerns have been expressed in the House over a number of years. The people of the region have every reason to expect that the Government will not neglect or continue to neglect their problems. They have every reason to expect that we, as a Parliament, will actually deal with some of the proposals.
It is with that in mind that I wrote to the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. I asked for that committee to travel to Atlantic Canada to take a look at what was happening. I indicated that we could use another in-depth study of the area. I suggested that if the committee did not have the time to tour all Atlantic Canada, it could use the very tragic situation of Cape Breton as a study model. I hope Hon. Members of all three Parties support that committee spending time to consider the situation and to make an extensive tour of the Cape Breton area. Other colleagues in my caucus have written to the same committee asking for an in-depth study, so that the people of the region could make presentations. I hope the committee will take the opportunity to visit there and to conduct a very intensive study.
I have visited Atlantic Canada a number of times in the last three months. For that matter, I have made three trips in the


Supply
last 75 days, for the sole purpose of hearing what the people had to say about the Government and what was happening to them. I visited Cape Breton as well as the mainland of Nova Scotia. There are many concerns, some of which resulted from the May 23 Budget. For example, the workers at the heavy water plants were laid off and only heard that fact as they listened to the budget speech on television. They were certainly affected by the actions of the Government. Two weeks prior to the presentation of the Budget, they were told by a Minister of the Crown that before anything happened to the heavy water plants they would be consulted. Also they were told that other job programs would be in place before anything happened to them.
Let us look at what happened. That is not what the Government in fact did. The more than 600 people working in those two heavy water plants turned on their television sets on budget night and heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), with that one line in his Budget, tell them that their jobs had disappeared. It was a shameful action. It was a cruel and harsh measure. Even if the Government believed that it had to take that step, it could have been more concerned about how it dealt with the people affected. They should not have been required to turn on their television sets that night to hear from the Minister of Finance, without any explanation or expression or concern, that their jobs and, in many cases, their homes in those communities had disappeared. That harshness or cruelty is typified in many of the decisions made by the Government.


Don Boudria: Shame.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is not only the present Government. As I said in my introductory remarks, it has not been only the Conservative Government. The Liberals cannot pretend, despite the mutterings of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), that these problems are new ones.
I should like to return to some of the concerns which I heard expressed in Atlantic Canada. I wrote to various Ministers about these concerns. For example, I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) about Sydney Steel Corporation and CN orders going to European manufacturers. That was not something new. The problems with Sydney Steel have existed for years. When the Liberals were in Government, we asked questions about Sydney Steel. We asked where was the money for phase two and when real action would take place on their commitment to those people. We are still awaiting that action. We were promised by the previous Liberal Government-and now the Conservative Government is promising it-that there would be money for phase two, yet the people of Sydney are still waiting. They were told that the decision would be made soon. They were told that in September and in October. They were told that a decision would be made before the end of October, and later they were told that it would be by the end of November. However, that decision has not come about. The previous Liberal administration and the present Conservative administration have talked a lot about Sydney Steel but have refused to act.
I have also written to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the workers in the heavy water plants in Cape Breton who were laid off. Many of the problems faced by those people were not only as a result of new Conservative measures respecting unemployment insurance. They also exist because there were cut-backs in the unemployment insurance program by the previous Liberal Government, and the Conservative Government continued along the same path.
I have written to many Ministers. For example, I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). 1 wrote to the Minister of Transport about CN Marine and staff reductions in North Sydney. I have written to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and to the Minister of Finance. I have written many letters, such as the one to the Minister of National Revenue about the heavy water plant workers. I have been trying to point out that these people are facing serious problems. They are not new problems. No one can pretend that they came about on September 4, 1984 with the election of the Conservative Government. These are problems on which the Conservatives are now making very harsh decisions, very harsh on the people who live in those communities and work in those operations. They are a continuation of the years of neglect, the years of failing to come to grips with regional economic expansion. We must remember that the Liberals were in power for most of that period of time.
One of the most harsh decisions in so far as Atlantic Canada was concerned was when the previous Liberal decided to dismantle the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. That Department was incorporated within the new Department, at which time I rose, as well as others, and explained that in the long run less money would be going into the hinterland areas such as Atlantic Canada and more money would be going into large industries in the heartland. This means that as the country continues to grow, the hinterland areas will continue to be ignored. That is what has happened.
I attended as an observer at the First Ministers' Conference, and Conservative Premiers from Atlantic Canada said that we were suffering because the money for regional development was not keeping pace with other government expenditures. That was said by Conservative Premiers. They told that to the Conservative Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other Ministers such as the Minister of Employment and Immigration. They said that the money was not forthcoming in the same proportion as it used to be. This results from the fact that there is no Department of Regional Economic Expansion with a specific mandate to ensure that the interests and concerns of the people living in those regions are looked after.
Again this is not strictly as a result of the neglect shown by the Conservatives. It is also a result of a decision made by the Liberal Government and a trend started by that Government to reduce the total amount of government expenditures directed toward regional economic expansion.
Before I sit down, and I made a promise to a Liberal Member that I would give him an opportunity to speak before


the debate ended, there is another item regarding Atlantic Canada about which I should like to speak. It is one of the reasons I went to the First Ministers' Conference and that is the Government's announcement in the Budget that it would be reducing expenditures for transfer payments by $2 billion annually. Transfer payments provide the money that goes to post-secondary education and medicare.
It does not matter to me that the Government is pretending that this is not a cut. I know that when they were in Opposition, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) were two of the chief critics of the Liberal Government when it did the same thing. Those two Ministers sat right here on the front benches and called the MacEachen Budget a cut that was breaking faith with the provinces. That is what they said then. Each of those Ministers said something to the effect that that would result in the closing of schools and the loss of beds for hospitals. I find it quite interesting that the Ministers who are actually responsible for health care and for providing money for medicare and post-secondary education are saying exactly the opposite now that they sit on the Government benches.
It is apparent, particularly in the area of medicare, that because of our growing population and because of the growing technology in the health field there are going to be cost increases in the field of health care, cost increases which will be much higher than the increase in the cost of living. For the Prime Minister to address the premiers and the House of Commons by saying that the Government will cover the cost of living and therefore the provinces should be grateful is for him to try to sell a myth. In fact, we know that the cost to the provinces for medicare and post-secondary education will increase by more than the cost of living.
For the Minister of Finance to say: "It's all right, boys and girls, it doesn't matter because we are going to cover at least the cost of living," ignores the fact that he is transferring the burden from the federal tax base to that of the provinces. The provinces will have to make up that shortfall. There is no region in Canada that will suffer more from that than Atlantic Canada. That is something with which the Government will have to come to grips. The Government broke a promise to the people of Atlantic Canada and that is something which will be remembered.
I recognize that there is not much time left in this debate and 1 will sit down soon, but in closing, I do want to say that the Government broke faith in so many areas that there really does now exist the cynicism about which the Liberal Member who spoke previously spoke so eloquently. However, Liberal Members must share much of the blame for that. They have to share that blame with the Conservative Members. What the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health and Welfare and saying is exactly the opposite of what they said when they were in Opposition and that breeds cynicism. It certainly breeds cynicism in the area of this country which needs the most assistance in order to develop in its own way.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my hon. friend from Churchill (Mr. Murphy) for leaving me some of his time, and 1 would like to take advantage of the few minutes I have left to take stock of the situation. I would have liked to do so in greater detail, but I will do what I can in the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, if I were to paint a picture of everything the Conservative Government should do for Atlantic Canada, I think it would not be a very happy one, with very few bright spots.
Not a day goes by in Atlantic Canada without people asking me, when I am there: Why are we being ignored? Why have people forgotten we exist? Mr. Speaker, it is not just me-it is also what the people down there think. Not long ago, according to the results of a public opinion poll, the popularity rating of the Conservatives in this region dropped to 33 per cent. The Liberals went up to 43 per cent. And no wonder. It is because this Government has done nothing except implement negative development policies in our region. Especially if we consider the question of regional economic development and what has been done for the Atlantic provinces. The Budget was cut by S450 million. In the Atlantic provinces, the conclusion is that the Government is ignoring us and has forgotten that we exist. Mr. Speaker, the Government wants to let the market forces act, and we all know what happens when you do that. The large urban centres are the winners, and disadvantaged regions like ours are the losers.
Mr. Speaker, this Government has no regional development policy for the very simple reason that to have such a policy, one must first have the political will to help these regions. And that is exactly what this Government lacks.
Another example to explain why people in Atlantic Canada have lost confidence in the Government, is what is going to happen to transfer payments. We are told that these payments will not be reduced. No indeed! They will not be reduced, but just the same, it is going to cost New Brunswick about $120 million. And they say: Don't worry, it's peanuts.
I continue, Mr. Speaker. 1 am talking about fisheries which happen to be a labour-intensive sector in Atlantic Canada, yet the only thing they managed to do was to cut the budget for small craft harbours, and then they decided to ask the fishermen to pay for certain projects such as dredging and wharf repairs. It is totally ludicrous to expect low income fishermen to finance projects which are the responsibility of the Government. Even more so when we consider the program to help fishermen build their own boats-there is no money left!
Our fishing fleet will gradually become obsolete and there will be no money to replace it.


Supply

Let me say a few words about the CN shops in which 225 jobs have been lost. The Minister cannot today explain why this is so and he does not want to take any position which will guarantee to the people of Moncton that those jobs will be protected.

And then, Mr. Speaker, another example in the tourism sector where all projects under IRDP agreements have been shelved. I must say that we in New Brunswick were seriously affected because they did not care and we had to wait for a whole year before job application forms were even available.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to the unemployment insurance file. They are now talking about re-examining the unemployment insurance program. It is criminal to consider making changes before finding something to give work to our people.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by quoting a passage of La Sagouine which adequately describes the actions of this Government:
Sure enough, they say that promises will be made right, left and centre during the election campaign ... You will get everything for nothing because you are first class citizens with the right to vote ... It does not change anything, once the election is over the Government is too busy and could not care less about us.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate do agree with the House of Commons in the resolution declaring Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada, by filling in the blank space left therein with the words "Senate and the".
Order! It being 6.10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 63(10).
* *
*


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10B-FINANCE
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 10b in the amount of $1,577,000 under the Department of Finance-Inspector General of Banks-program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 145)
Members
Andre	Elzinga	Landry	Atteweil	Epp	Lanthier	-Beatty	(Provencher)	La Salle	Belsher	Fennell	Layton	Bernier	Ferland	Lesick	Bertrand	Forrestall	Lewis	Binns	Fraleigh	MacDonald	Bissonnette	Fretz	(Kingston and	Blais	Friesen	the Islands)	Blais-Grenier	Gagnon	MacDougall	Blenkarn	Gass	(Timiskaming)	Bouchard	Gervais	MacKay	Bourgault	Gormley	Mailly	Boyer	Gottselig	Malone	Bradley	Graham	Marin	Brightwell	Gravel	Mayer	Browes	Greenaway	Mazankowski	fiCadieux	Grise	McCain	Caldwell	Guilbault	Mclnnes	Charest	(Drummond)	McKenzie	Clark	Gurbin	McKinnon	(Brandon-Souris)	Halliday	McKnight	Clifford	Hardey	McMillan	Cochrane	Harvey	Merrithew	Collins	Hawkes	Minaker	Cook	Hicks	Moore	Corbett	Hnatyshyn	Nicholson	Cossitt	Hockin	(Niagara Falls)	Crofton	Horner	Nielsen	Crosby	Howie	Oberle	(Halifax West)	Hudon	Oostrom	.Crouse	Jacques	Paproski	Darling	James	Pennock	Daubney	Jardine	Peterson	de Cotret	Jepson	Pietz	Della Noce	Johnson	Plourde	Desjardins	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Porter	Dick	Conception)	Price	*Domm	Joncas	Ravis	Dorin	Jourdenais	Redway	teDuplessis	Kelleher	Reid	Edwards	Kindy	Reimer	mEllis	Ladouceur	Ricard	
Members
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(V ictor ia- H a I i bu rton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Shields
Speyer
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-144.
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Garneau	McCurdyAlthouse	Gauthier	McDonaldAngus	Gray	(BroadtBenjamin	(Windsor West)	MitchellBerger	Guilbault	MurphyBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonCassidy	Heap	(Trinity)Copps	Henderson	OrlikowDeans	Hopkins	Parryde Corneille	Hovdebo	Pennerde Jong	Jewett	PepinEpp	Keeper	Prud'homrm(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Langdon	RobichaudFinestone	Lapierre	RobinsonFoster	MacLellan	RodriguezFulton	Manly	Tobin-43.
Mir. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 35B-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 2
That vote 35b in the amount of $211,000 under the Department of Finance- Tariff Board-program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we would be disposed to dispense with the ringing of the bells so that we can proceed to the vote.
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford
Cochrane
Collins
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Dick Domm Dorin Duplessis Edwards Ellis Elzinga Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gervais
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Benjamin
Boudria
Cassidy
Copps
Deans
de Corneille de Jong Epp
(Thunder Bay-Nipigon) Finestone Foster Fulton Garneau
Supply (Division No.
++YEAS
Members
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gravel
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-Conception) Joncas Jourdenais Kelleher Kindy Ladouceur Landry Lanthier La Salle Layton Lesick Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone Marin Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
++NAYS
Members
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault Saint-Jacques) Heap Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett Keeper Langdon Lapierre MacLellan Manly McCurdy
Minaker
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Paproski
Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Plourde
Porter
Price
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Shields
Sparrow
Speyer
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
T upper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise
Witer-146.
McDonald
(Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme Robichaud Robinson Rodriguez Tobin-42.
146)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret) which was agreed to on the following division:


Ian Deans: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There might be a disposition to allow the vote just recorded to be


Supply
applied to the remaining two, namely, Vote 1(6) under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and Vote No. 51(B) under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is that disposition, I suspect with the addition of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) in the opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 3
That Vote lb, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion-Operating Expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 147)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Ferland	MacDonaldAttewell	Forrestall	(Kingston andBeatty	Fraleigh	the Islands)Belsher	Fretz	MacDougallBernier	Friesen	(Timiskaming)Bertrand	Gagnon	MacKayBinns	Gass	MaillyBissonnette	Gervais	MaloneBlais	Gormley	MarinBlais-Grenier	Gottselig	MayerBlenkarn	Graham	MazankowskiBouchard	Gravel	McCainBourgault	Greenaway	MclnnesBoyer	Grise	McKenzieBradley	Guilbault	McKinnonBrightwell	(Drummond)	McKnightBrowes	Gurbin	McMillanCadieux	Halliday	MerrithewCaldwell	Hardey	MinakerCharest	Harvey	MooreClark	Hawkes	Nicholson(Brandon-Souris)	Hicks	(Niagara Falls)Clifford	Hnatyshyn	NielsenCochrane	Hockin	OberleCollins	Horner	OostromCook	Howie	Pa proskiCorbett	Hudon	PennockCossitt	Jacques	PetersonCrofton	James	PietzCrosby	Jardine	Plourde(Halifax West)	Jepson	PorterCrouse	Johnson	PriceDarling	(Bonavista-Trinity-	RavisDaubney	Conception)	Redwayde Cotret	Joncas	ReidDella Noce	Jourdenais	ReimerDesjardins	Kelleher	RicardDick	Kindy	St. GermainDomm	Ladouceur	St-JulienDorin	Landry	SchellenbergerDuplessis	Lanthier	(Wetaskiwin)Edwards	La Salle	ScottEllis	Layton	(Victoria-Haliburton)Elzinga	Lesick	ScottEpp (Provencher)	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Fennell
	Members	
Scowen	Towers	WarnerShields	Tremblay	WenmanSparrow	(Lotbiniere)	WilsonSpeyer	Tupper	(Swift Current-Stackhouse	Turner	Maple Creek)Tardif	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wilson(Charlesbourg)	Vankoughnet	(Etobicoke Centre)Taylor	Vezina	WinegardThacker	Vincent
NAYS Members	Wise Witer-146.Allmand	Gauthier	McDonaldAlthouse	Gray	(Broad view-Greenwood)Angus	(Windsor West)	MitchellBaker	Guilbault	MurphyBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonBoudria	Heap	(Trinity)Cassidy	Henderson	OrlikowCopps	Hopkins	Parry .Deans	Hovdebo	Pennerde Corneille	Jewett	Pepinde Jong	Keeper	Prud'hommeEpp	Langdon	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	Lapierre	RobinsonFinestone	MacLellan	RodriguezFoster	Manly	Tobin-43.Fulton Garneau	McCurdy


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE SIB, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Robert René de Cotret: Motion No. 4
That Vote 51b in the amount of $2,916,000 under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion-Investment Canada-Program Expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986 be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 148)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford
Cochrane
Collins
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Dick Domm Dor in Duplessis Edwards Ellis Elzinga Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gass
Gervais
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gravel
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks


Members
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-Conception) Joncas Jourdenais Kelleher Kindy Ladouceur Landry Lanthier La Salle Layton Lesick Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone Marin
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain Mclnnes McKenzie McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nielsen Oberle Oostrom Paproski Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde Porter Price Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
++NAYS
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Shields
Sparrow
Speyer
Stackhouse
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise
Witer-146.
Allmand	Members Gauthier	McDonaldAlthousc	Gray	(Broadview-Greenwood)Angus	(Windsor West)	MitchellBaker	Guilbault	MurphyBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonBoudria	Heap	(Trinity)Cassidy	Henderson	OrlikowCopps	Hopkins	ParryDeans	Hovdebo	Pennerde Corneille	Jewett	Pepinde Jong	Keeper	Prud'hommeEpp	Langdon	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	La pierre	RobinsonFines tone	MacLellan	RodriguezFoster	Manly	Tobin-43.Fulton	McCurdy	Garneau	
Supply
ment of Canada for the financial yar ending March 31, 1986, be read the first time and be printed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-89, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986, be read the second time and referred the to Committee of the Whole.
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that this Bill is in its usual form with no unusual or extraordinary additions?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Chairman, 1 am more than happy to assure that the form of the Bill is the same as that passed in previous years.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Clause agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(B)
Robert René de Cotret: That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, laid upon the Table Wednesday, November 6, 1985, except the votes disposed of earlier this day, be concurred in.


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-89, an Act for grating to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Govern-


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Adjournment Debate


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that we wait one minute for the House to clear and that those who wish to leave, do so expeditiously.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today about an important problem which affects more than 17,000 women each year in Canada, including 7,000 in Quebec. I wish to call the attention of the House to the breast implant studies submitted to me a few weeks ago by Dr. Robert Guidoin, an eminent researcher at the Experimental Surgery Department of the Universite Laval in Sainte-Foy.
As a woman, I am very sensitive to this serious issue, which jeopardizes the health of many Canadian women each year. I made a statement about this last week and asked a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to
find out what had been done following my many interventions in this regard.
If I raise this issue once more today, it is because I consider that all Members of this House should be made aware of the urgency of undertaking a vast study program on breast implants used by surgeons, and especially on the need to regulate the quality of these implants.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare now provides no control over silicone implants used by surgeons.
Research clearly show that, during the two years following the initial operation, inadequate silicone implants can rupture or leak, causing considerable damage to the tissue of the patient who must then be hospitalized for additional surgery.
Mr. Speaker, the optimism with which the use of medical silicones was greeted has now been tempered by caution in view of the various types of evolutive complications associated with them, such as calcification, distortion and proliferating encapsulation.
Of the implants examined, 21.7 per cent have shown signs of encapsulation, and this does not take into account the fibrous capsules sent by themselves. A slight difference was noted between intact and damaged implants. Intact implants showed fewer fibrous capsules, or 13.9 per cent, than the damaged ones, which showed 38.2 per cent.
As for mineralization, it was found present not only in the fibrous capsules, but even on the very surface of the implants. Of all implants examined, 48.1 per cent showed mineralization of the implant itself and 11.8 per cent of the fibrous capsule. The conclusions of the analyses show that intact specimens seemed to be more mineralized than the damaged ones. The proportion was 50 per cent in the first case and 40 per cent in the second. In addition, implants of the Heyer Schulte brand showed 80 per cent mineralization compared with 38.1 per cent for Dow Corning brands.
The results of these analyses show the serious problem raised by this surgery. After such an operation, the health of women is seriously threatened and this raises grave doubts about the safety of medical practices in this type of surgery.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is urgent to make additional funds available in order to undertake immediately a major research program to remedy a situation which jeopardizes the health of thousands of women each year. I also ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to establish very precise regulations to adequately control the implants used by surgeons.


The studies on breast implants are of vital importance and I deplore the short-sighted attitude of the Department of National Elealth and Welfare toward this type of investigation.
The best proof that studies to develop better regulations and control have been so far neglected by the Department is that the most recent research project entitled "Breast implants: their characteristics and behaviour in situ" presented last May by Dr. Guidoin to Departmental officials was categorically turned down.
As Dr. Guidoin told Dr. Sheena Lee, Head of the Research Administration Division, it is a great disappointment to realize that this research project was not recommended for financial assistance under the National Health Research and Development Program.
This project seems to have been taken lightly and indicate a complete lack of communications between the various divisions of the department. I find most regrettable this situation which might have serious consequences for Canadian women who will have to submit to this kind of surgical operation during the forthcoming months and years. These negative effects might be even worse than those we have been able to assess so far.
I therefore ask the Minister to take action to remedy this situation as soon as possible. He should take steps to make available additional research funds immediately and implement regulations very shortly. I call for much stricter control to rectify the intolerable situation which exists now.
Because we need to protect the health of a great many Canadian women, including a large number of Quebec women, I urge the Minister to take the necessary steps without delay. This situation which endangers the health of women should not be tolerated any longer.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer a question by my hon. friend from Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), on a subject of great topical interest.
Mr. Speaker, reconstructive surgery has become common place. Every year, thousands of Canadian women undergo such surgery in an attempt to recover their normal appearance. Some of these treatments are simple and effective, while others are complex and sometimes unpredictable. And some only provide temporary improvement and require frequent surgical touch-ups.
When the purpose of the operation is to correct a deformity or disability resulting from an illness, accident or the removal of a malignant tumour, medical expenses are refundable on the same terms as all other essential health care. However, if a person decides to undergo plastic surgery although his or her appearance is quite normal to society, it is up to that person to pay the cost. However, any complications due to plastic surg-
Adjournment Debate
ery that was not successful may be refundable if harmful to the health and well-being of the person in question.
Breast reconstruction is practised throughout the western world. The destroyed tissues must often be replaced by a permanent implant designed to give the breast a normal appearance. These implants come in the form of bags filled with a liquid and are permanently attached within the breast. Various methods are used to manufacture these medical aids, and since the end of the sixties, a variety of models have been available.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time, products of this kind must be imported. All must comply with the Food and Drug Act and the regulations on medical instruments.
However, until now, only the new implant devices available on the market since 1983 have been subject to a pre-marketing examination. Very few have been introduced up to now. In fact, most of these products were introduced before the regulations were amended in 1983.
On the basis of reports from abroad on breast implants and unfavourable reactions to these devices, the Department of National Health and Welfare decided to look into the matter in 1982. A study conducted in Canada at the time revealed a certain degree of dissatisfaction within the medical community. Generally, it has been found that the results obtained by breast implants were not spectacular, but that there was no need to take corrective action. The Health Protection Branch was recently advised of unfavourable reactions to these products. The reports submitted raised once more the doubts already expressed about the quality, durability and long term safety of certain breast implants.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is now reevaluating the need for research in this area with a view to improve the quality and safety of breast implants used in Canada. It should be possible to achieve a decrease in the morbidity and costs associated with the treatments, the new surgical interventions and the readaptation of patients who are unfavourably affected by reconstructive surgery. We have to find mechanisms to make good use of the experience of research centres and doctors specialized in this field. As in any highly sophisticated branch of medicine, their participation is essential.


AIRPORTS-AUTOMOBILE RENTAL POLICY. (B) REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago I raised with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) a matter concerning the policy regarding car rental agencies at airports. At that time I requested the Minister to postpone the bidding which was imminent and to refer the matter to the Transport Committee. I made the allegation that as a result of the way the regulations had been written the only


Adjournment Debate
Canadian national system, Eloliday Rent-a-Car, would not be eligible to apply in relation to key airports in the country and that, in fact, the only Canadian national system could not long survive. In fact, that is exactly what has happened in this last year. Because Holiday Rent-a-Car was not able to apply for positions at the Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal airports we no longer have a Canadian-owned national car rental system today. In fact, the Holiday Rent-a-Car system has essentially gone belly-up. Most have sold out to Thrifty's or Hertz and a few are left hanging on as independents.
Essentially, Government policy destroyed a small Canadian car rental system. What we have left is car rental systems owned by foreign multi-nationals. This comes from a Government which paid a great deal of lip service during the last election to taking Government regulations out of the marketplace, and allowing a freer market to exist by giving encouragement to Canadian industry. It is a shame to see that the actual results of its policies has been the suppression of the Canadian car rental system.
Some 80 per cent of the car rental business is done out of airports, which is now totally controlled by foreign-owned multi-nationals. The small independent car rental companies are being strangled to death.
This is a situation made worse by the new policies put into effect by the major airline companies. For example, the Aero-plan which Air Canada operates is attracting most of the car rental business to the national and international chains. Small companies which are not part of a national chain are not eligible to participate in the Aeroplan. Therefore, only companies which provide a national service are allowed to participate in the Aeroplan. Small independent locally-owned and Canadian-controlled companies are not eligible and are being squeezed out.
It is also interesting to note that Budget Rent-a-Car has now become the largest of its kind in Canada. All the regulation changes, and even counter space, which Budget Rent-a-Car requested have been given to it. I must express concern and some suspicion that there might be some political connection between this Government and Budget Rent-a-Car. It may be that at some time in the future when someone writes his memoirs we might get the full story of why Budget Rent-a-Car was allowed counter space at the Toronto airport and why it was given all of the changes in regulations it asked for, because those regulations which were allowed to stay in place killed the major Canadian competition so that today we have Budget Rent-a-Car as the major care rental agency and we have no Canadian car rental system left.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little strange, and I am not all that certain it is a wise use of the chamber's time, to be discussing a matter which was thoroughly dealt with and which, I believe, took up some considerable amount of time both in the House, in the Senate and in the Standing Committee.
However, notwithstanding that, I can refer the Hon. Member to the very ample explanation given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) a little over a year ago in response to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) on November 22 and on November 29 in committee. At the same time Hon. Members availed themselves of an opportunity to meet for an extended period with the Minister to discuss this matter. Indeed, I myself responded to the Hon. Member at some length in this very chamber.
The Hon. Member should rest assured that every possible effort was made to accommodate Holiday Rent-a-Car within the parameters of the policy-and I think this is most important-without being unfair to other bidders.
The car rental policy was carefully scrutinized by this Government in 1979 and, after consultation with industry, a workable and fair policy was in fact developed and put in place. I might also add that during the time of the previous Government an extensive review of the policy was conducted over a two-year period. I do not, therefore, believe that any useful purpose would be served by the Hon. Member's request that this matter be referred to a Standing Committee on Transport at this time.


TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO. (B) MAGAZINE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised on December 5, which I wish to expand on this evening, concerns cultural sovereignty for Canada and free trade. The question was directed to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and he gave the best answer I have ever received in this House on the issue. He referred to the Prime Minister's assurances which were given in Chicago that anything concerning cultural sovereignty would not be on the negotiating table. I wish I could be more relaxed and confident that this very good answer is really the answer of the Government because we are still receiving messages of a different sort from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
Recently a meeting was held with leading representatives of the cultural community with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was thought at the meeting that the idea was adequately put across that they did not want to have any part in negotiations for free trade. They thought that that had been well understood. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was quoted after the meeting as saying: "They are prepared to work with the Government in negotiations as we prepare our case".
As a result of that statement, or misunderstanding, a very noted writer, Graham Gibson, who was part of that delegation replied that they all tried, apparently in vain, alas, to persuade Mr. Clark that cultural matters must not be negotiable. Moreover, he said, if the Government did place culture on the bargaining table, it would encourage concerted opposition from our community. We have very little to gain and, most probably, much to lose if Canada allows cultural matters to be


a part of negotiations. They were unanimous in pointing out that it was not greater access to American markets that we need, but fairer access to our own. That has been the message from cultural groups across the country to this Government.
1 have been raising the issue in the House and it needs to be raised again. Canadians want access to Canadian markets. Canadians want to communicate with other Canadians. Access to American markets is the icing on the cake. It is desirable and certainly very possible in some industries, some being more appropriate than others. However, they do not want to sacrifice their ability to reflect Canadian problems, to be Canada's image, in order to gain more access to American markets. American films made in Canada with American stars, American signposts, American licence plates and American flags are not Canadian culture. The fact that they will sell well in the U.S. because they appear to be American films, even though they are produced here simply to take advantage of certain economies, may be well and good economically, but it is not Canadian culture and not what we want.
Canadian artists are worried about cultural sovereignty being bargained away. They are also worried about cut-backs and Canadian culture being cut away. Last year cuts to the CBC were in the order of $85 million and more cuts are expected this year. There are rumours of substantial cuts for the National Film Board and the National Arts Centre. We are worried that promises made at a very general level are not implemented in practice. For example, the publishing policy announced by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) last July. We have a very specific case involving Prentice-Hall which has not been resolved. We are worried when it comes down to cases the Government will capitulate to pressure from the Americans and the goal of repatriating our culture will not be met. Just today we had some excellent recommendations from the film industry task force concerning film distribution being Canadian-owned and controlled.
Will the Government act? It certainly has not shown it will act promptly in defending Quebec's film policy. There is a proposal that the National Arts Centre cease to function as a centre for Canadian culture and excellence and instead simply be a place for cheaper imported shows. In other industries that is called dumping, but in Canadian culture it is simply, according to the Americans, the opportunity to treat the Canadian market as an extension of their own. There are rumours of a freeze in Canada Council funding. That would be a real cut-back because expenses are going up and last year the Council suffered a real decline. There had also been a long-term erosion of Canada Council funding under Liberal Governments. We are really concerned about that.
The second very specific question I raised with the Minister concerned subsidies to our magazines. There was no answer at all from the Minister. We have a growing magazine industry. It is not flourishing yet. Only one-quarter of the magazines on our news-stands are Canadian with the balance overwhelmingly American. However, that is an improvement. We have seen
Adjournment Debate
a large number of magazines coming onto the market because of a policy introduced by the previous Government involving postal subsidies and the policy on advertising in Bill C-58 which freed up a lot of advertising money for Canadian periodicals. We now have a relatively strong, certainly a growing industry. Some 186 new periodicals appeared after 1977. We have now a total of 5,000 titles. The industry employs 25,000 people with a payroll of $500 million. Subsidies are absolutely essential if this industry is going to continue, especially the smaller and newer Canadian magazines. They would fold if it were not for the subsidies. Of course, if the subsidies were removed it would be cheaper for magazines to distribute by a private, commercial delivery system in the city and our Post Office would be left with the expenses of rural deliveries. This is a very vital, growing part of our culture and we want it to get the attention it needs from the Government. We have had enough rhetoric. We need practical policies. They are going to cost money, but the cultural industries repay that money six-fold. We want to see action on this front.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how much I welcome this opportunity to speak on a question that we, as a Government, consider so fundamental. We all recognize that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is very interested in our cultural sovereignty. I had the privilege of serving with her on the sub-committee on the revision of the copyright law. I remember in particular one day in Montreal when she stood down the Yankees, and she did it with fierce Highland pride. I congratulate her and assure her that this is also a central concern of the Government as we prepare to begin negotiations with the United States.
I hold the view that in the exchange between the Hon. Member and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) on December 5 the Hon. Minister clearly and unequivocally defined the Government's position on cultural sovereignty. Furthermore, he reminded the Member that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) had raised this same question in his speech in Chicago last Wednesday evening. The statements of the Minister and of the Prime Minister should, as far as I am concerned, dissipate any doubts in this regard. Nothing related to our cultural sovereignty will be part of these negotiations with the United States.
I will take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of repeating the Prime Minister's statement. He told his audience on December 4 in Chicago that "when it comes to discussing better trade rules for cultural industries, you will have to understand that what we call our cultural sovereignty is as vital to our national life as political sovereignty". To me that is a formal engagement on the part of the Government to safeguard Canada's cultural sovereignty. That should make us all very pleased. [Translation]
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) also referred more specifically to the Canadian magazine industry. Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure her that we look


Adjournment Debate
upon the profitability of our periodicals and of the whole Canadian publishing industry as one of our major priorities in the cultural realm. The Government's commitment became a reality last July when we announced a clear and specific policy on non-Canadian investment in the publishing industry, and we expect to take other such constructive initiatives.
Referring to publishing and other Canadian cultural industries in the context of negotiations to liberalize trade with the United States, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) stated on December 5 that "it is up to us to decide what will or will not be negotiable". It is with that in mind that our Government will make every effort to protect our cultural sovereignty and the instruments through which we express it, such as periodicals.

We believe that it is in formulating effective policies clearly defining our cultural objectives that we will succeed, on the one hand, in ensuring the viability of our cultural industries and, on the other, in taking the fullest possible advantage of enhanced trade.
In keeping with the Government's intention to reduce the federal deficit and the desire to minimize government intervention in the private sector, the Minister of Communications has committed himself to rationalizing the Postal Subsidy Program. This program, which is over 100 years old, has never been thoroughly and completely reviewed in the past. In June, 1984, the consulting firm, Woods Gordon, published a report based on a study of the Canadian periodical publishing industry conducted on behalf of the Department of Communications. This study was instrumental in the formulation of a national periodicals policy being developed at the Department of Communications by departmental staff.
In May, 1985, the Minister of Communications commissioned some consultants to conduct an evaluation of some aspects of the Postal Subsidy Program and to appraise what would be the impact of substantial postal tariff increases on the publishing firms currently registered in the Postal Subsidy Program. The findings and results of these projetcts are also being examined and we should be in a position to determine if we could reduce the Postal Subsidy Program's budget, and by how much, without affecting the dissemination of information in Canada through the printed media and the economic viability of the Canadian publishing industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 11, 1985