1985-05-15

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the situation in the Province of Newfoundland with respect to the reductions which have been made by the Minister responsible for CMHC in social housing and special housing in that
province.
Yesterday I received a copy of correspondence which was sent to the Minister from the Community Housing and Support Services Council of St. John's, from the Executive Director, Mrs. Penny Rowe. Mrs. Rowe pointed out that the reduction in social housing units in St. John's this year has reached the 67 per cent mark. She further pointed out to the Minister that there has been absolutely no allocation this year in the Province of Newfoundland for special purposes housing.
One has to recognize that while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) only a few days ago was celebrating the fact that unemployment had gone down in Canada, in the Province of Newfoundland unemployment went up by 2.3 per cent. In the city of St. John's, and indeed, in the entire Province of Newfoundland, there are many applications before CMHC to provide housing for battered women, children with special needs, and nursing facilities. Because the special funding is totally absent this year, the start-up funds will not be available to allow applications to proceed for those very worth-while and necessary projects.
The people of Newfoundland are extremely upset-


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


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, for years the people of Toronto have been trying to find or create affordable
housing against a vacancy rate of less than 1 per cent and run-away inflation of land prices.
Some years ago Toronto City Council began to plan a redevelopment of the huge railway yards near the waterfront; office towers near Yonge Street, and housing at the other end of the city, east and west of Spadina. All types of housing were planned, including rental, privately and individually owned, co-op, non-profit, singles housing, family units, assisted and market housing. The planning also included schools, community centres, work-places, and parks.
Now a bunch of tycoons are trying to destroy those plans. Canadian National, Imperial Oil, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Coca Cola, Hiram Walker, McDonald's, Labatt's, and Olympia-York are using the Dome Stadium as bait. They are using free railway land, and mainly taxpayers' money. Through Canadian National, the Metro Council, and the Ontario provincial Government, they plan to redevelop the whole 75 acres as commercial land. That will wipe out the possibility of housing. It will also restart the Spadina Expressway from the south, which will destroy established residential neighbourhoods from Queen Street to Eglinton Avenue.
I call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to halt this give-away of public land by the CN for the purpose of private profit, and to ensure that the public land is used for housing, recreation, and the needs of ordinary Canadians.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, today approximately 70 members from the Beth Tikvah Synagogue of Willowdale, Ontario, tried to contact the Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. to Canada, to discuss the extraordinary case of Anatoly Shcharansky. Avitali Shcharansky, his wife, was also present.
Mr. Shcharansky epitomizes the struggle of Soviet Jewry and the pain and anguish of refusniks. The Shcharanskys' marriage was only 12 hours old when Avitali was given a visa and told to leave Russia. Mr. Shcharansky was arrested on March 15, 1977, and held incommunicado for 16 months. He was tried in 1978 and sentenced to 13 years.
What was his crime? Mr. Shcharansky simply chose to help organize a group of people who wanted to ensure that Russia abided by the Helsinki Accords which were signed in 1975.
The world was once again vividly reminded of Mr. Shcharansky's plight when he endured a four-month hunger

May 15, 1985
strike in 1982. He won that battle and was finally allowed to receive visitors and mail.
This is not just a struggle to free one more political prisoner; it is a struggle for fundamental human rights. Members attending the Human Rights Experts Conference here in Ottawa need to be strongly reminded of Anatoly's struggle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VICTORIA DAY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind the House of some very important dates in the history of Canada.
May 20 is Victoria Day. That date is more than simply a weekday departure from the work-place. That holiday commemorates the birth of Queen Victoria, daughter of Edward, who was the son of George III.
Victoria ascended the throne in 1837 and reigned 63 years. She died at the age of 81 in the year 1901.
It was during her reign that a very special country was born in North America. The breath of life was given to Canada, transforming a British colony into a productive and powerful country.
Since that time the Royal Family has retained the respect and admiration of the people of Canada and countries around the world.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who was born on April 21, will formally celebrate her birth date on June 15 this year. According to tradition, her subjects will join in the festivities led by the Trooping of the Colour. That fabulous military parade constitutes one of the high spots of spring in England.
Canada's love for the Queen was much in evidence during her visit here last year from September 24 to October 7. From the bottom of our hearts, may we all say to her: "God save the Queen!"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BLUEBERRY EXPORTS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn today that the Government has reached a tentative agreement with the European Economic Community with respect to the proposed tariff on Nova Scotia blueberries. That is very welcome news.
The blueberry industry in Nova Scotia is one of the brightest spots for employment in that province. The industry grows $15 million to $20 million worth of blueberries annually.
There are at the present time some 1,000 or more blueberry growers in the Province of Nova Scotia who employ approximately 800 full-time workers and 4,000 seasonal workers each year.
In March of this year the various states within the European Economic Community announced they would be imposing a new 25 per cent tariff on Canadian blueberries. This proposed tariff would pose a very real threat to the industry in Nova Scotia. The European market is, after all, the single largest importer of Nova Scotia blueberries.
I think it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Government cannot afford to protect one industry at the expense of another. I call upon members of the Government to ensure that this tentative agreement is ratified as expeditiously as possible, because the Province of Nova Scotia cannot afford to lose any of the economic benefits which are associated with the blueberry industry, not only in mainland Nova Scotia but also in the Highlands of Cape Breton Island.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members of the House are aware, it has been proposed that salaries and benefits of Members of Parliament be improved. As chairperson of the New Democratic Party caucus, I wish to inform the House, and all Canadians, that we do not share the conclusions of the task force report. It is our view that Members of Parliament are already adequately compensated-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: -and, indeed, at a time when so many Canadians are unemployed and waiting for the Government to take constructive steps to improve the Canadian economy, it would be misguided and inappropriate to put the salaries of Members of Parliament on the government agenda. The priority of the Conservative Government should be to put Canada's unemployed back to work, and it should review the tax system which allows thousands of wealthy Canadians to avoid paying income tax, which results in an increased tax burden on an overwhelming number of Canadian taxpayers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, today, speaking on behalf of the regional Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean caucus and its constituents, I would like to congratulate
May 15, 1985

and thank the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) and Minister of State (Transport), who was intrumental in re-opening the St-Raymond paper plant in Desbiens.
Mr. Speaker, since last Sunday, Desbiens has been in a state of euphoria now there is hope once again for all those people who were laid off for 42 months. The day after the election the four Members from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area made the Desbiens dossier one of their regional priorities. Desbiens became a symbol for the region, and following the regional economic summit, we agreed to do everything in our power to help the people of Desbiens regain their dignity as workers.
Thanks to the work done by our Minister of State (Transport), our Government will be providing more than $4 million, in addition to a substantial tax credit, to help the plant get started again this summer. Quebec and the company that owns the plant are also doing their share.
Mr. Speaker, once again I want to say that our colleague deserves to be congratulated for successfully managing this very difficult dossier, unusually so within the present context, with the result that the people of Desbiens in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area can start to live again.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Minister of Communications announced the appointment of a seven-person task force to review the Canadian broadcasting system, the first such review in 17 years. In line with this Government's commitment to appoint people of merit to key policy positions, all but one of the appointments are non-partisan or contra-partisan.
Next Tuesday the Caplan-Sauvageau task force will begin its work. By early 1986 it is to make recommendations to the Minister on the following points: appropriate public policy objectives, cultural and economic, of our unique mixed system into the 21st century; the role and mandate of the three components of our system, national-public, private, and provincial; most significantly, the demands and desires of the public, taking into account the diversity of our no longer solitary linguistic, regional and ethnic communities; the role of such policy instruments as regulation and the public purse; and the unshackling of the system to see what it can do culturally and economically.
The array of talent comprising this task force will assure that it takes its task seriously. It is hoped that, in the absence of any task force member representing the millions of smalltown and rural Canadians, the seven distinguished appointees will pay special heed to the needs and wishes of our heartland.
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment a fishery protest is taking place in the Gulf of Georgia by a group of British Columbia trollers. As a result of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' (Mr. Fraser) failure to develop a West Coast fishing plan, the Minister and his Department have deprived these trollers of an opportunity to earn a living in the 1985 Fishing season. In addition, by failing to declare an early opening date, the Minister will likely prevent many of these trollers from qualifying for UIC this fall.
Instead of making himself available to consult with established user groups, as well as failing to make himself available to answer questions in this House and monitor the activities of his Department, the Minister has decided to spend extensive periods of time in the U.S. and Europe. This particular Minister made personal election promises that he would not only consult with fishermen but that he would be readily available when problems arise. The reality is that this Minister is generally unavailable, and in the last several months has rarely been in Canada.
Members of this Party request that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to return to Canada and fulfil his responsibilities, or resign.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Government is on lock-out or strike, because I wanted to ask a question of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I will ask it of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Crosbie:: Look behind you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were presented with the Dick and Jane primer on external affairs. It is a kind of sad day when Canadians are presented with a bland document like that, and this is really not acceptable. It was supposed to be a document opening the door to serious participation by the public, but it is in fact the opening of the door to ridicule. We see great statements like "we and the United States are neighbours"; or "Africa is a vast and diverse continent."


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: How about that.

May 15, 1985
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he read that document, and if we can take it as the sum of the brains and talents of the Government when it tells us that we will have a committee and at the same time the Government intends to make decisions on a daily basis, making a farce of participation by the Canadian public?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand the negative attitude of the former Minister. Here we have a process which is unique; for the first time ever a Green Paper on foreign policy has been produced for public discussion. This has never occurred before. Already, without even approaching such discussions in a positive way, the Opposition is ridiculing the consultation and public discussion process. But that is exactly what it is-to stimulate and encourage public input with respect to our foreign policy.
Yes, I can tell the Hon. Member I have read that document and it is stimulating, and hopefully-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: You don't need very much.


Erik Nielsen: It takes a good deal more to stimulate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry than it does me.


Lloyd Axworthy: You'd be surprised.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Get hold of Len Hopkins.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very sorry. I have known the Hon. Minister since 1963, and his admission that he read it and found it very good means he has gone down in my esteem very rapidly.


UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister says it is a serious discussion, but, if it is, will the Government agree that the committee to be formed can have public hearings right now and that, as it concerns his own Department, we will be consulting Canadians right now on star wars, and not wait to make the report after the decision has been made by the Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Here they go again, Mr. Speaker. They howl about having the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence obtain a reference about NORAD, but my colleague, the Government House Leader, has made offer after offer to those opposite to bring a NORAD reference before the committee so it can be discussed, and they refuse to have that discussion.
I am surprised at the Hon. Member, because he used to be a lawyer. Most people would want to come to value judgments based on facts. He knows as well as I do that we are now in the
process of gathering those facts through a group headed by a very distinguished civil servant, Dr. Kroeger, who is marshalling sufficient information upon which some value decisions might be made.

[ Translation]


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence that I am in charge of that committee, and that the offer made by the Government House Leader was never transmitted to me, not by him, not by yourself nor by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Seriously, before we agree to put up names for this committee, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government is willing, at this time, to make consideration of Star Wars a priority, as well as the question of trade with the United States, which is now the subject of negotiations, and if the Government agrees to priority consideration of these two issues that are of major importance to Canadian policy, we will sit on this committee, and if the Government does not agree with these priorities, we will have to tell Canadians that it is just another exercise in public relations, and the Canadian people will start getting thoroughly fed up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really would have expected more from a responsible Opposition. The Hon. Member has said that the Official Opposition is adopting the same abdication of responsibility which is to be expected from the NDP, namely, the abdication of its responsibility to participate in the parliamentary process. The NDP made up its mind long ago that it would not do that. I would not have been a bit surprised to hear that from the NDP, because it has always had difficulty in coming to grips with the parliamentary process. However, I am really astonished at the irresponsibility of the Official Opposition taking that kind of stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps all Members might remember that at the end of Question Period yesterday all Members asked that everybody be able to hear. It is amazing how quickly we forget. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


KROEGERINQUIRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the somewhat over-
May 15, 1985

stimulated Deputy Prime Minister. On May 8 during this session the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated in the House that the Kroeger inquiry was to go to Washington simply to look into the technical and economic details of the American invitation to join the SDI research program.
Last night in the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence senior officials of the Department admitted that the Kroeger inquiry is in fact looking into the broad range of domestic, international, strategic, and political questions related to SDI. They further admitted that the Defence White Paper, which we will not see for several months, is also going to take the same considerations into account.
How can the Government make a decision based upon the Kroeger Inquiry when the Minister has only spoken to American officials and has not consulted with any Canadians on the broad strategic defence requirements? How can a decision on defence matters be made when we have not seen a Defence White Paper? In other words, how does the Minister resolve this confusing and contradictory way of making vital decisions in the interest of the country?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I may be over-stimulated, but I am not under-brained. As many times as the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry hears the answer, he chooses not to listen. The discussion that will be stimulated by the Green Paper on External Affairs should be welcomed by him. I can see that he has the same lock-brained attitude as his colleague, the critic for External Affairs.
If the Member wants to make a positive contribution as a Member of Parliament in the Official Opposition, he will join in the efforts of the special committee which has been set up to examine the foreign policies of the country.


UNITED STATES INVITATION-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT POSTPONE DECISION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I would never, in the House, question the intelligence of the Deputy Prime Minister, although he has given no evidence so far to show that he has much.


Mr. Broadbent:: Good shot.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: On April 18 the Prime Minister, again in response to questions on SDI, said, as reported at page 3859 of Hansard:
We will consider these matters within our own time frame and not with regard to any limitations of time imposed by anyone else.
Last night at that committee senior officials stated that while the Kroeger Inquiry will report in June, the Minister will not necessarily make a decision.
Taking these statements into account, will the Minister commit himself and his Government not to take any decisions on SDI involvement, or research involvement in SDI, until a
Oral Questions
committee of this Parliament has had a full opportunity to discuss the SDI program, based upon the Green Paper? Will he make a commitment that there will be no commitment until that examination takes place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, logic would compel one to the conclusion that one cannot have a discussion until one is seized of the facts. That is the purpose, even though the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry refuses to hear that.
Once we have those facts before us, then we are in a position to make value judgments as a Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Will you consult us?


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the level of intellect that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry draws, I would ask him to apply the same logic that I have applied in my response to his question, by comparing our relative positions in the House.


GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he believe in consultation with the Canadian public on an issue like star wars? Their views have not yet been heard.
He indicated in an earlier answer that he does believe in consultation. If so, why is the Government planning to make a decision about whether or not Canada will participate in star wars before he has heard the views of the Canadian public? If the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to hear the Canadian public, will he commit the Government not to proceed with a star wars decision until the parliamentary committee has heard the Canadian public, listened to their concerns, and reported to Parliament?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, here is a surprising question, coming from the foreign affairs critic of a Party that has already made up its mind not to participate in the special committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Here is a Member who complained most vociferously in the House about my failure to appear before the Standing Committee on Defence-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: -to answer the kind of questions she is putting now. When I did appear-who was absent at the time to put those questions?

May 15, 1985
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, come on! Where is the Prime Minister today?


Mr. Deans:: Where is the Secretary of State?


Erik Nielsen: She will forgive me if I view with some skepticism the question she puts. But I would encourage her and her Party to participate in the parliamentary work of that special committee, and to put her views where they belong, in the parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: The Deputy Prime Minister is being as insulting today as he can possibly be. That is a great deal. I have told him many times that I was ill for that one single session.


An Hon. Member:: How many times?


Pauline Jewett: I have told him many times with respect to that 64-minute session that he was at the committee.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long one can go on listening to insults from the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister care about listening to the various views of the Canadian public on star wars? The Government can still make its decision. We will still make our decision on it. I am not saying that the Government should have a referendum. I am asking does the Deputy Prime Minister care about listening to their views on star wars? External Affairs officials say there has not yet been time for the public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: -to express views-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Member has had quite a long time to ask the question. I now need the answer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware of the fact that I appeared before that committee not once but twice. She was in attendance at one of the meetings but not at the other-


John Edward Broadbent: She was sick.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: What about consultation?


Mr. Nunziata:: Sleaze bag.


Erik Nielsen: -at the time it concluded work. I certainly did not mean to be insulting, if she took my remarks as being insulting to her. I thought that in my normally abrasive
fashion I was being kind in responding to her question. The Hon. Member should see me when I am really insulting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the specific question she put, the Green Paper on foreign policy is broad enough to entertain the kind of discussion that the Hon. Member would like to have, and that others would like to have, as they say they would like to have-


John Edward Broadbent: A real winner.


Erik Nielsen: -and if the Hon. Member and her Party would participate as members in the work of the special committee that has been set up to discuss that Green Paper for precisely the reasons that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have to be fair.


Lloyd Axworthy: Good.


WORK OF COMMITTEE
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why bother having a special committee spending a year discussing the matter upon which the Government has already made a decision? Why bother? Why put that enormous expense on the backs of the taxpayers when the Government has decided on its defence policy, or will by fall in its White Paper; when it has decided on its trade policy or will by fall, according to the Quebec City summit; when it has decided, or is about to decide, on star wars? Will the Minister tell me why bother?


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not like to leave the wrong impression with the House, as is the wont of so many members of the Official Opposition in questions of this nature, that there have been decisions taken on SDI, or that there have been decisions taken on trade, or that there have been decisions taken with respect to defence policy. Those decisions have not in fact been taken. Again I would encourage the Hon. Member to approach her task, as a Member of Parliament with specific responsibilities in the area of foreign policy, in a positive way and participate in the parliamentary process by participating in the work of that special committee.


Pauline Jewett: It is a charade.
May 15, 1985


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the document entitled "Directions for Canada's International Relations".
In this 47-page report, the chapter on human rights is very well hidden, and after much patient searching, we find a meagre paragraph which in French bears the unfortunate title of "Les droits de 1'homme". If the Deputy Prime Minister read the report, he probably noticed that it contains only 17 lines- a quarter of a page-on human rights, and that those 17 lines are a collection of cliches. The Government gives no indication of the directions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a
question?


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: My question is as follows: What does the Government intend to do about human rights?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that if one paid attention in the drafting of such a Green Paper to all of the interests of all of the Members of the House of Commons, the least amongst which is not human rights, it would generate a multi-volume Green Paper. The very fact that the subject was introduced in a Green Paper is an indication of the Government's concern with human rights as an element of our foreign policy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Surely more than three paragraphs.


Erik Nielsen: We take back seats to no one with respect to our work in human rights, as evidenced by the recent visit of the Secretary of State to Russia, and by the recent meeting that took place here in Ottawa and our ambassador's work in that committee.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is a whole blank page you could deal with.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister had read page 17, he would have noticed that three quarters of the page is blank. There is absolutely no text, and there was ample space to express the Government's position.
Oral Questions


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my second question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns international dvelopment. Here again, we find only generalities. The only thing that is clear from this chapter is that there will be more budget cutbacks. The Government has already cut $180 million from the development aid budget. My question is as follows: Where is the voice of the Third World, the voice the Prime Minister promised would be heard in Bonn two weeks ago? What specific solutions does the Government intend to provide, and if no clear answer is given today, how can people give their views on a document as vague as this one?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick and positive response to the Hon. Member's question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That is that she, and others with similar interests, should participate as parliamentarians in the work of the special committee that has been set up to make inquiries into those matters.


TIMING OF DECISION ON UNITED STATES STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. I sat up late last night reading this document.


An Hon. Member:: Where you stimulated?


Ian Deans: Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House what purpose a committee will serve, unless the Government is prepared to commit itself not to take a decision on star wars until the committee has completed its deliberations and reported back to the House of Commons? With that in mind, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake on behalf of the Government not to have a decision taken on star wars until the committee that will be set up to investigate whether or not Canadians are in favour or opposed to such a commitment has had a chance to study it and report to the House of Commons?


Erik Nielsen: Here, Sir, is a Member who is asking questions with respect to the Green Paper, who has already made a decision-


Mr. Fulton:: Cut the B.S.


Mr.   de Jong@: Answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: -that he and no member of his Party is going to participate in a special committee set up for a parliamen-

May 15, 1985
Oral Questions
tary purpose of examining the question the Hon. Member [Translation]
raises, and many other questions.	TRADE


Pauline Jewett: Why bother?


PROPOSED FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
Erik Nielsen: The world does not stand still while the parliamentary process continues.


Pauline Jewett: This is a mockery.


Erik Nielsen: The Government has to govern. I know that he and members of his Party have an extremely difficult time in coming to grips with the parliamentary process.


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it.


Erik Nielsen: I urge the Hon. Member in this instance to have his Party participate in that process in the examination of the Green Paper.


BILATERAL TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
Ian Deans: Why should we shore up a lame duck committee?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who do you plan putting on the committee?


Ian Deans: Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question on a related topic contained in the report. Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least acknowledge that on the question of bilateral trade with the United States there is already in place a mechanism, including the Minister of Trade in Canada and his equivalent in the United States who are to report to the heads of the two countries within six months? Will he, therefore, acknowledge that a further study in Canada of bilateral trade could not be completed within six months? Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake on behalf of the Government not to complete any bilateral trade agreements until this committee has reported to Parliament?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I find that an extremely negative approach, but it is not an unusual one for that Member and the members of his Party to take. What he is suggesting is that there is no need in the next six months to do everything we possibly can to enhance our trade relations, not only with the United States but with other countries of the world as well. Certainly trade is addressed in the Green Paper because it is one of the most important matters with respect to our competitiveness as a nation. Surely this is the kind of thing which he and members of his Party should be discussing in the discussions which will be going on in the special committee.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence, 1 am ever more convinced that it had to be the best world junket organized for frustrated Progressive Conservative Members-at taxpayers' expense to boot.
Seeking evidence to the contrary, I would ask the Minister for International Trade-used as he is to being pushed aside by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, as he was again yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-how he cari reconcile his recent country-wide consultation tour about free trade with the United States with the fact that, being now totally ignored by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he is seeking public approval to appear a second time before a parliamentary committee, with photocopies and all.


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. gentleman that I am standing here on my own two feet and that I am not being pushed aside by anyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I would further like to advise the Hon. Member that I work in very close consultation and partnership with my colleagues, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and that the trade discussions are continuing with full consultation with the Canadian public.


CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN PEOPLE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
There is no need for the Minister to tell me that he stands on his own two feet, I also know he is performing a balancing act between the two Ministers involved. He is telling me that there is ongoing full consultation with the Canadian people. Can he explain why he ordered renewed full-scale consultations yesterday since we know he wants to begin negotiations with the United States before this fall? He and the Prime Minister have assured us that negotiations will begin before the Fall. Can the Minister tell me whether he will wait for the committee report before initiating those consultations, or are his own consultations the real ones and the others a mere make-believe exercise? Which are real and which are phony?
May 15, 1985


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member to refer to the foreword contained in the paper, and to page 33 of the said paper in which it is set out that the consultations may move ahead on Canada-U.S. trade in advance of talks and discussions on the Green Paper. However, I would also remind the Hon. Member that the Green Paper speaks to more than just Canada-U.S. trade. It speaks to the whole matter of world and multilateral trade negotiations.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister will be aware of reports by her own Department which show that pollution in the Great Lakes is much worse than we thought it was, and even then it was bad. Could the Minister tell the House what plans she has to accelerate the process by which the Great Lakes and the Niagara River, in particular, can be cleaned up? Will she be making any special representations, as of now, with this new knowledge, to the United States to have the $150 million which was cancelled for sewage treatment restored, and on various other things which the Americans could be doing to get serious about cleaning up this important environmental problem?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party for his question. He will be glad to hear this has already been done. I handed over the figures myself in Washington last week, and the result is that planning for the Niagara River clean-up is being accelerated.


HERRING-GULL EGG PROGRAM
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that we have a promise of a plan by the fall, not a promise of action. So that the Minister is better able to ensure that that plan is translated into action soon, will she undertake to reinstate fully, not partially, not one out of six, the herring-gull egg program which she cancelled last fall and which has made our credibility on Great Lakes pollution weaker than it has to be?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, we must see the question in its current context. It is being said that pollution in the Niagara River has increased, but we must not forget that under the previous Government, only two types of effluents were analyzed, the industrial and municipal type. We are now analysing many
Oral Questions
more kinds of effluents using far more sophisticated techniques, and now we must find out whether there really has been an increase. If so, we shall certainly inform our U.S. colleagues accordingly.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance).
Considering recent bank failures and bearing in mind that since 1983, bank deposits have been guaranteed up to a maximum of $60,000, and considering the inflation factor, does the Minister intend to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to enable the Corporation to guarantee deposits up to a maximum of $100,000?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As I have pointed out to the House on previous occasions, we have undertaken a full study of deposit insurance and financial institutions. We are taking all suggestions into account, in order to ensure the best possible and most stable financial systems for depositors.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. One of the more profound statements in yesterday's Green Paper was that all industrialized nations saw technology and innovation as the most critical elements in today's economic equation. This harkens back to the statement made by the Prime Minister in February, 1984, that we have to double our R and D commitment and triple our resolve to reach it. However, yesterday the Minister of State for Science and Technology said that the Government would not keep its promise. In a masterful display of doublespeak, he said that a promise had now become a distant goal.
When will the Ministers of the Government stop mouthing meaningless platitudes and fulfil the promises which they made to Canadian people? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his Minister that a promise is not a promise when it is a goal?


Erik Nielsen: When you cut through, Sir, all these questions that have been asked today concerning the subject matter of the Green Paper, you are forced by logic to come up with only one conclusion. For instance, the Hon. Member for

May 15, 1985
Oral Questions
Winnipeg-Fort Garry and his colleague are really saying that they are against space research of any nature or kind whatsoever. The questions of those Hon. Members are disguised, but that is their position. They are just opposed to it, and they will twist and turn anything at all to escape that conclusion.


SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS-GREEN PAPER COMMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try out another question on the Deputy Prime Minister. Another statement which was made in the Green Paper yesterday was that it was uncertain whether Canada was producing the number of scientists and engineers required to develop and sustain an advanced industrial structure. Recently Mr. Mac-Nabb, the President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, was much more frank about it. With the numbers of students presently in the sciences, we just cannot achieve-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


David Berger: -anything like the 2.5 per cent goal. Does he agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this situation is uncertain, or does he agree with Mr. MacNabb? Will his Government back up its promises with swift action rather than equivocation?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the earlier statements which he ascribed to myself are incorrect. In fact the Government is committed to moving toward the goal of increasing our investment in science and technology to the economic benefit of Canada; to creating permanent jobs in the new areas of technology; and to continuing to support the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and other initiatives of the Government in a very ambitious way, to the benefit of Canada and our young people.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who has been acting like a wandering gypsy during this Question Period. If I could, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, here he comes.


Steven W. Langdon: Here by popular demand. Yet more problems for Mitel are appearing from the proposed takeover by British Telecom, with the announcement made by Bell Canada that it is reconsidering its purchases from Mitel because British Telecom is one of its major rivals. Would the Minister commit
himself to meet urgently with Mitel management in order to urge them to adopt the 18 per cent minority proposal for participation rather than the majority takeover?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member undoubtedly knows, we intend in due course to meet with the Mitel people in order to hear more about the nature of the deal. With respect to the statement attributed to Bell Canada by The Globe and Mail, as the Hon. Member probably knows Bell Canada was investigated some time ago with respect to vertical integration in procurement practices. As a result of this story I have asked two of my colleagues, the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, at least to check into the story to find out if there is some substance to what was reported by The Globe and Mail.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is it not activities like the kind of activity undertaken by his Ministry, in allowing a major corporation that is so involved in research and development to go into foreign hands, that contribute to the fact that the Government has now indicated publicly that it has abandoned its promise to double R and D spending in Canada by 1988?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is stating something that is just not true. We have not allowed or disallowed anything in that respect. All we have done is acknowledge that there is a deal and that in due course we will undoubtedly have an opportunity to review that deal.
I pointed out, and will point out once again for the Hon. Member, that Mitel was in difficult financial straits. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. This company has offered to put into Mitel over $300 million of fresh equity, which will at least ensure that 2,500 Canadian jobs, and 5,000, including international, jobs will be preserved. I am on the side of the workers of Mitel, and I think it is time that the Hon. Member got on the side of the workers of Mitel as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
Following steps taken by the Minister in March this year in the fight against acid rain, could the Minister inform the
May 15, 1985

House whether she has already seen any signs of changes that will improve the quality of life of Canadians?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and welcome this opportunity to announce to Hon. Members that Inco, without waiting for the regulations to be introduced by the Province of Ontario, has already announced a 50 per cent reduction in its acid emissions, which is good news for all Canadians. I hope this announcement will persuade other companies, such as Noranda, to follow suit.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, and I am referring to the publication of this working paper, I would have expected the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be in the House. In any event, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence.
1 was hoping he would finally explain to the House the reason for publishing this insignificant document on foreign policy. The Green Paper on External Affairs is an embarrassment to Canadians and an insult to the intelligence of the people of this country.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence is as follows: When is the Government going to publish a really serious paper on issues relating to the nuclear arms race, external trade and human rights-a paper that can be taken seriously?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member now enjoys a position in this House of being the Leader of a political Party whose roots go to the very heart of our parliamentary traditions. One of those traditions is that Members who are elected and are paid to attend to the parliamentary process do participate in it. It ill behooves the members of the Right Hon. Member's Party not to participate in a special committee of the House of Commons which will answer that very kind of question, and explore that and many other areas of the Green Paper. It does not assist the system whatsoever, nor does it enhance the image or credibility of the Opposition, when the Opposition refuses to participate in the process and then seeks self-righteous justification here in the House of Commons.


REQUEST THAT GREEN PAPER BE WITHDRAWN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Deputy Prime Minister's failure today
Oral Questions
to commit the Government to the delay of any decision on star wars or on the completion of negotiations with the United States on the international trade picture, will he withdraw this embarrassing document which does not read much better than a high school text book, and will he forget the committee hearings which the Government has turned into a farce?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman who just asked a question was once the member of a Government that produced White Papers while it was in office, and while those White Papers were before committee that Government made decisions recognizing the fact that the world does not stop while discussions are ongoing. The Right Hon. Member would not only be fulfilling his responsibility but would achieve a meaningful and constructive participation in the parliamentary process if he would urge his colleagues, and indeed instruct them, to participate in the work of that committee which will examine all of the questions, including the one he just asked.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and concerns an attempt by his Ministry to muzzle effectively all members of the Canadian Armed Forces by denying each and every one of those members the right to make submissions to the Committee on Equality Rights, through an internal order that was issued the day the discussion paper was issued. I have a copy of that order here. In view of the fact that this committee is dealing with issues of basic concern to many rank and file members of the Forces, will the Minister immediately rescind this gag order and stop denying the men and women of the Armed Forces their rights to full equality before the law?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of any such order. I welcome participation in the discussion of equality rights at any time. It is my intention to appear before the subcommittee that is examining that question, if that is the subcommittee's wish. However, there was certainly no gag order issued by me. Indeed, I wonder just how effective it would be to gag 83,000 members of our Armed Forces and 33,000 civilian personnel through any such order. It has not been done by me.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may not know about the order, but the order exists and members of the Armed Forces are bound by it. Will the Minister rescind that order? Furthermore, will the Minister agree to appear with his officials before the committee, by the end of next week at the very latest, instead of refusing to

May 15, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Frith
appear before the committee as he and his officials have done so far? Will he finally summon the courage to come before the committee and defend his Neanderthal policies on women and minorities in the Canadian Armed Forces?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question a moment ago when I said that I would welcome an opportunity to discuss equality rights.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Rescind the order.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member has asked me to rescind something which I have not seen. Surely even his reason, as limited as it might be, would compel him to the conclusion that I certainly would not be expected to be au fait with every single order which is issued in an armed forces which are 83,000 strong. If he will make the document which he is waving about available to me, I will certainly examine it and take whatever action that I deem to be reasonable under the circumstances.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) on Tuesday, May 14, 1985, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Order, please. I am in receipt of a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Sudbury and I could be heard. The Hon. Member for Sudbury has a question of privilege and the Speaker would like to hear it. Could the Members of the House please allow that, particularly Members on my right.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as I believe that my ability as a Member of Parliament to properly service my constitutents is being infringed or impeded. The question of privilege relates to a directive which was issued by the Department of Employment and Immigration concerning the Challenge '85 program.
Some three weeks ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) circulated to all Members of Parliament a memo which indicated that we would have free and open access to the approval process for projects under the program and the number of dollars which would go into each
riding. Since that time I have been informed by officials within the Employment Development Branch in the City of Sudbury that they had received directions from their regional headquarters which stated that the officials working for the Department had been instructed not to release information on the projects or the number of people who would be involved.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you as a Member of Parliament as well as the Speaker of the House, will realize that a number of those project sponsors are in contact on a daily basis with constituency offices wanting to know the status of the projects. Therefore, I believe that the directive which was issued by the Department of Employment and Immigration is infringing on my ability to properly service my constituents.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will instruct the Minister who is responsible for that Department to allow that information to be made available to every Member of Parliament.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not aware of the specifics of the matter which has been raised by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). I rise only to suggest to you, Sir, that it is not a question of privilege. I believe it is a question which deals with the administration and operation of government. Therefore, on a technical basis, I suspect that it is not a question of privilege. It may be a matter on which the Hon. Member would want to have discussions with the Minister, and I am sure the Minister would be very receptive to hearing representations to determine if something should be done. Indeed, the Minister, as I understand it, was before the committee yesterday and attempted to deal with the matter at some-


Mr. Allmand:: She thought it was a wonderful policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a lecture from the Liberal Party about interrupting its Members when they are speaking. Today I cannot make myself heard, because the Liberals are trying to shout me down. They cannot have it both ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Order, please. Again, I am addressing my remarks to all Members. I previously indicated that one side was being excessively noisy. Now the other side is being excessively noisy. Is it not possible, even on a question of privilege, for back-benchers and front-benchers on all sides of the House to allow me to hear what is being said?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the truth is causing so much irritation. I am only attempting to suggest to the Hon. Member that he does not have a question of privilege within the meaning of that phrase for parliamentary purposes. I am sure the Minister will be glad to receive representations and that she will discuss the matter in the usual competent and outstanding way for which she is known across the country in the performance of her responsibilities.
May IS, 1985


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this on the same question of privilege? Otherwise I will have to wait until the first one is finished.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is on the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to raise a question of privilege, considering it is my duty and my right as a Member of this House to represent the constituents of the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie to the best of my ability.
Mr. Speaker, employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration confirmed to me, on the telephone, that departmental employees are not allowed to give any information to any Member of the House. I am raising a question of privilege not because the instructions issued by the Minister are an infringement on the rights of public servants and project sponsors, but because they infringe on the privilege of Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question because the instructions issued by the Minister are aimed directly at parliamentarians, at all Members of this House, and these guidelines are aimed at all Members as far as Quebec is concerned, whatever their party affiliation. I think it is very important to protect the privilege of Members who are here in the House to defend the interests of their constituents, and I also think the Minister should be asked to withdraw these instructions.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all Hon. Members for their contributions. 1 think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege. By saying that, I do not want to diminish the nature of the complaint or the seriousness which Members apply to what they believe to be a legitimate grievance.
I must say that I was intrigued by the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Sudbury that somehow I had the capacity to instruct or control a Minister. I seem to be having enough trouble with Members of the House. I appreciate the goodwill which was included in the suggestion.
I believe Hon. Members know that the purpose of parliamentary privilege is to protect our speech in the House, the institution itself, and the institution and Members from threats, obstructions and intimidations in the exercise of our duties. The Hon. Member clearly has a complaint on a matter which concerns him, as well as other Members, with regard to the actions of a government Department.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray f Windsor IVest)


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Opposition Members are not being allowed information.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is saying something which he did not say for the record. When the Hon. Member spoke for the record he said the complaint had to do with a refusal with regard to all Members. In any event, this is a matter which involves a government Department. There are remedies available for that. I suggest, therefore, that I would have great difficulty in finding this matter to be within the realm of parliamentary privilege. I appreciate the sincerity with which his view is held.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order regarding today's Order Paper. The Government has given notice of a motion which it purports to be pursuant to Standing Order 82, and has given 48 hours' notice under Government Notices of Motions. That means that when Government Notices of Motions are reached on Thursday, May 16, this motion will be transferred to Government Orders. It could be called at the Government's will, including eleven o'clock on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday morning.
On every previous occasion when Standing Order 82, formerly Standing Order 75(c), was applied, the motion had been proposed on Motions during Routine Proceedings. In accordance with Standing Order 82, notice has been given orally by a Minister from his place in the House and has been moved pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(p) on Routine Proceedings. When the debate on the time allocation motion has had to be interrupted or adjourned before the debate was concluded or terminated, that is before the maximum two-hour limit had been reached, and only in these cases, further consideration of the motion has been transferred to Government Orders pursuant to Standing Order 49(2).
Nothing has ever prevented the Government from supplementing the required oral notice with a written Notice of Motion to be printed on the Order Paper in the appropriate place. In the case of a Motion pursuant to Standing Order 82, the appropriate place is not Government Notices of Motion, but rather under Motions. This is required by Standing Order 36(1 )(p) which establishes the proper place for the consideration of a motion relating to the management of the business of the House.
For example, when the Government decides to provide for an adjournment of the House for a period of time, not provided for in the Standing Orders, it gives 48 hours' notice and the motion appears in the Order Paper not under Government Notices of Motions but under Motions. In the case of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82, of course, written notice is not
4770

May 15, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West) required. But, if written notice is given, it still must be initially taken up by the House, not under Government Notices of Motions but under Motions. By giving 48 hours written notice of a motion to be put down under Government Notices of Motion, the Government is not giving notice of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82, but is giving notice of a substantive motion which, at the appropriate time, will be transferred to Government Orders for eventual debate without being subject to the special time limits applied to a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, if the motion of which the Government has given notice is supposed to be a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82, it ought to appear under Motions rather than under Government Notices of Motions. Only then would the limits on speeches, the over-all limit on the length of debate, apply. Any written notice of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82, if it is to be treated as a motion subject to the provisions of that Standing Order, must be taken up under the heading assigned to motions relating to the management of the business of the House, that is to say, Motions.
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the serious defect in today's Notice Paper and I would ask you to take the appropriate action.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to support the representations made by my colleague. In attempting to determine whether or not such a move has been undertaken by a Government in the past, my staff and I have been unable to come up with a situation similar to this. The normal practice has been in the past that the question of time allocation, which this is, be dealt with under Motions during the routine business of the House, and the transferral from the normal practice to a practice generally reserved for considerably different types of motions is a practice which I think would set a dangerous precedent which this House would live to regret.
I would ask, Sir, that you ask the Government to simply adhere to the procedures which have heretofore proved to be satisfactory, and require of the Government that it deal with this motion in the appropriate and normal way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am quite frankly somewhat surprised to hear this point of order. I thought I was doing the Opposition a great favour in proceeding in this particular manner. The position of giving appropriate notice to the Opposition so that it would be in a position to proceed on any debate is one which I had thought would have been welcomed with open arms by Hon. Members of the Opposition. We have completely complied with every procedure available under our Standing Orders, and I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, that the Standing Orders do speak for themselves. It is not a question of the Government deviating from the Standing Orders. There has been no suggestion made that we are deviating from the Standing Orders. We have complied in every respect with the Standing Orders.
The House Leader of the Official Opposition makes reference to the appropriate motion and the procedure available with respect to time allocation. I think that particular Standing Order is one which is clear, unequivocal, and in fact is one which is quite properly the subject of moving because it is in the name of a Minister of the Crown, and is only available to a Minister of the Crown as an item which is subject, and can be subject, to a Notice of Motion with respect to Government Orders.
This is a Government Order, a government initiative, which clearly is contemplated by the Standing Orders which allow us to give notice so that the matter can be debated on a timely basis and the House can arrive at a decision. The purpose of the rules and the Standing Orders is not to avoid coming to conclusions. They have to be interpreted, Mr. Speaker, as being established so that Hon. Members can vote on issues and come to conclusions, not the contrary.
What I have done here is criticized because it has not been done before. I take that as a compliment. As the Government House Leader, I like to look at the Standing Orders and take their clear and direct meaning. It is clear to me that the Standing Orders do contemplate that we can, in fact, proceed by way of Government Notices of Motions. We can have discussions-I am in discussion with the Opposition House Leaders about appropriate timing-and try to come to agreement with respect to the extent of a debate.
However, what I have done here, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, is for the purpose of allowing Members of Parliament, and especially Hon. Members of the Opposition, an opportunity to be well prepared for any debate which may come along with respect to this important step of time allocation. I have bent over backwards to be helpful to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I am now faced with the proposition-which surprises me-that the Opposition is somehow challenging the Standing Orders, when in fact I have complied in every respect with all of the facets contained in the Standing Orders.
When a Standing Order speaks in very specific terms about a particular procedure it speaks for itself. I know that in the past this has been done under Motions, and that is quite acceptable. But for the reasons I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, when a motion is in the name of a Minister of the Crown, and can only be in the name of a Minister of the Crown, there can be nothing clearer than the fact that this is a matter of a Government initiative with respect to time allocation.
I believe that if you give this matter some serious consideration, Mr. Speaker, you will come to only one conclusion. Whenever we abide by the Standing Orders we do so for the purpose of going along with orders under which this House operates, not for the purpose of deviating or using any device which does not reflect the rules. It is the wisdom of this House that we operate under these Standing Orders. The fact is that I did not have a part in the drawing up of the Standing Orders. They were the subject of great debate and were brought in by the Party of the House Leader of the Official Opposition who now complains about these Standing Orders. But he was a party to bringing these matters in.
May 15, 1985

All I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that I have taken a very straightforward view with respect to the Standing Orders and I have complied in every respect. I believe if you read the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, you can come to only one conclusion, that this is an appropriate method of proceeding. I would ask you to rule accordingly.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that we are not going to be thankful to the Government House Leader for, as he said, bending over backwards to be pleasant to us. Once we have had the unpleasant notice about closure on Bill C-15, we know it is coming, so he does not need to bring it forward a second time. He has done so now in writing. There is no problem; we don't quarrel with the fact that he is giving us supplementary notice. The gist of what our House Leader was trying to put forward is that if the Government House Leader wants to give a second notice-which we agree he has a right to do-he should do it at the right place, namely, under Motion. That is the main point we are trying to put across, and that is what we would like you to rule on, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully appreciate that that is what I will have to rule on. I think Hon. Members will agree that the suggestion that the Standing Orders are always clear and permit only one interpretation has to be of interest to all of us who deal with these matters.
Since I do not think it affects debate today, and I think I have the time, I am going to reserve on this matter. I have had some preliminary thoughts on it, because when I saw the matter on the Notice Paper I started to ask some questions. I have come to no conclusions. I am grateful for all the learned advice I have been given, and I will of course make sure that a ruling is ready for the House in sufficient time that the matter can be appropriately resolved.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, I have the honour of tabling the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today a petition on behalf of the Estonian Central Council in Canada. The Council petitions the House for its assistance in protesting the continued imprisonment of an individual who represents the voice of freedom in Estonia. Mart Niklus has been imprisoned for speaking out against the Soviet regime and has embarked upon a hunger strike in protest. Niklus is now suffering from poor health caused by the extended hunger strike-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the Hon. Member finished summarizing the petition?


Andrew Witer: The petitioners implore the Canadian Government to protest his continued imprisonment and demand his release.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition from residents of the constituency of Calgary South, Alberta. They petition the House to take their views into consideration, namely that the proposed increase in postal rates is unjustifiable in view of the present standard of service.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the petition I present is from the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association. They call upon Parliament to reverse the regulation passed by Cabinet which takes severance pay into account when calculating unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of Saskatchewan's Seniors Action Now Association, the leadership of whom are in the gallery today. If I may summarize very briefly, they make seven recommendations to this Parliament, including the fact that retirement income for seniors should be at least the minimum wage, and the total retirement income should be at least at parity with 75 per cent of the average income for all Canadians. They also talk about establishing a Department of Senior Citizens-I am sorry I cannot go on, but they make seven excellent recommendations and I am sure if you were in my position you would present their petition.

May 15, 1985
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member also knows that there are rules in the House about references to the presence of anyone in our gallery.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present on behalf of a few thousand constituents in British Columbia a petition asking that all laid-off employees be able to keep their severance pay and receive their unemployment insurance benefits, as was the case prior to March 31 when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) changed the regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions? The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am now required to seek unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member to present another petition. Members are supposed to present all their petitions at once. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to present a further petition or petitions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is such consent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of students in the Department of Political Science at Laval University, Quebec City, concerning unemployment in Canada and the need for increased investment in this country and for a new income infrastructure.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 237 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 237 be made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1984 to date, what public information in print form and on film or slides has been produced by the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning (a) drug abuse, including alcohol (b) young runaways (c) family planning (d) venereal diseases (e) family violence (0 the causes of family breakdown (g) health concerns of senior citizens (h) special needs of the handicapped?
2.	For each information package produced, what was its (a) availability to the public (b) corresponding French title (c) cost to the public to obtain or borrow a copy, if applicable?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Nelson Andrew Riis: That this House recognizing the lack of economic leadership provided by the Provincial Government of British Columbia, condemns the Federal Government for its failure to provide economic leadership and for its failure to fulfil its election promises to the people of British Columbia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I feel very badly today because we find it necessary to bring forward such a motion. After all, when one comes from a province like British Columbia, noted for its richness and optimism, it is a sad thing to find people in many parts of the province walking around almost in a state of shell-shock. They cannot believe what has happened to their hopes and aspirations, watching their farms and ranches foreclosed by the banks, watching their small businesses disappear around them as bankruptcies continue to march upwards.
May 15, 1985

There is a feeling in British Columbia that something has gone dreadfully wrong. Yet when one looks to the federal Government for leadership, let alone the provincial Government, there appears to be nothing there. It was that situation which encouraged us to put this motion forward for debate today, and I am very pleased to rise on behalf of my Party to make a few opening remarks.
I think it is fair to say that the situation in British Columbia is very serious by almost any indicator. This past year housing starts reached a 20-year low in that province. Retail sales are a good indicator of how things are going and how confident people are about the economy; they have declined in every year over the last four years. I think it is fair to say that the largest single source of income in British Columbia is now welfare. What a condemnation that must be of the political leadership in that part of Canada. Just the other day we received the unemployment statistics for Canada. In every province things were essentially looking up, with two exceptions. Newfoundland is one, and we all appreciate that that province has traditionally been very hard hit. But we also have British Columbia where the situation has gotten worse. Unemployment levels went up in April of this year. It is the only province in Canada where the situation continues to deteriorate. I think it is fair to say that when we mention British Columbia people start to look at you kind of peculiarly, and kind of laugh at what is going on in that part of Canada. The British Columbia Government has turned that province into a laughing stock, and people do not invest in laughing stocks.
Look at the Vancouver stock exchange, Mr. Speaker. The majority of the money being raised on that exchange is for investment outside of the province. What does that tell us about that economy? In parts of British Columbia today unemployment is in the range of 25 per cent to 30 per cent. That is a very serious situation, yet what is the provincial Government doing about it?
The Provincial Government keeps telling us when people ask for support that there is no money for education. There is no money for the school system as we have known it. There is no money for the colleges and universities. They have to take cuts, as do the technical and vocational schools. There is no money for the expansion of hospitals and health care in that province. There is no money for senior citizen housing or child care. There is no money to help the hard pressed food production sector, the farmers and ranchers of British Columbia. There is no assistance for the forest or mining sectors. There is nothing for tourism other than Expo. There is no assistance for the hard-pressed business sector. There is nothing until after Expo in 1986.
As a matter of fact, the other day someone was saying that there is a new "wine" in British Columbia. It is called "We can't do anything until after 1986". We are hearing that repeatedly from every Cabinet Minister and the Premier of that province. However, that is not quite true. They instantly found $500 million to assist with the debt of B.C. Rail. That
Supply
was no problem. Then they needed $1 billion to develop that north-east coal project. That happened just before the election and many geologists and mining people were wondering if that was a wise move. They had doubts about what the Government was doing. However, the Government insisted that the northeast coal deposit was the big employer, the megaproject, the opium for the people. It cost over $1 billion to provide infrastructure for the development of the Tumbler Ridge town site. Just a few weeks ago we found out that the mine was dug in the wrong place. The coal was not where the mine was dug. It is going to cost in excess of $300 million to move the operation to the proper location. We made a $300 million mistake. We went against the advice of our geologists.
The Government is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Expo, yet there is nothing for child care or senior citizen housing. There is nothing to help college and university students. There are cut-backs on loans and increasing tuition fees. However, for Expo there is all kinds of money.
There are some peculiar things in relation to Expo as well, Mr. Speaker. We needed some trees to beautify the Expo site. They said they could not find any trees in British Columbia. They had to import trees from the United States to British Columbia. That is like saying you have to import sand into the Sudan. It is ridiculous that British Columbia could not provide trees for its own Expo site.
One could go on and on with a vast list of examples of how the Government has provided absolutely no leadership. Any leadership it has provided is laughable and despicable. It is a slap in the face of British Columbians that these people are supposed to be providing economic and social leadership in that province.
If one went downtown in Vancouver, Nelson, Trail, Kelowna, Prince George or Prince Rupert and asked people where the province is going over the next 10 years, they would tell you that it is going down. There is no sense of vision, strategy, or a plan for the future. Everyone is fumbling and stumbling over themselves as the critical fishing, mining and forest sectors of our economy cry out for support, direction and assistance. They are simply turned down. The Government walks away as it continues its scorched earth policy in British Columbia.
I do not want to continue to talk about the lack of political and economic leadership in British Columbia. It becomes distressful after awhile. The most distressful aspect is that Cabinet Ministers and the Premier in British Columbia are still suggesting that the most important resource in that province is timber or copper or coal or fish. The most important resource in that province is the people. To cut back on educational funding is an improper way to treat the people of British Columbia.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Don't get so angry, Nelson.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) says "Don't get so angry, Nelson". That is probably fair advice. However, Mr. Speaker, there is no other emotion left with which one can react to the serious, dreadful, and

May 15, 1985
Supply
horrible situation which is occurring in that province. Quite frankly, I wish there was one single item about which I could be optimistic. I suppose that Members opposite will stand up and tell us about the wonderful things the Socreds are doing in that part of Canada. I hope they do, Mr. Speaker, because I would love to make a few comments on what they have to say in support of the Social Credit policies.
1 would now like to turn to the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. Nine months ago after the election it was conceived that the new Conservative Government would do all sorts of things for British Columbia. There were Conservatives through-out British Columbia saying that they were going to help the agricultural, forestry, fishing, and small business sectors. People actually believed them, just as they believed the Socreds when they said they were going to create jobs and improve the economic situation. Well, the Socreds brought in a policy of restraint and cut-backs. I suspect that a week from tomorrow when the Budget is introduced in the House we will see a repeat of that mindless approach to the development of the economic infrastructure of a country in a sound and progressive way.
The Conservative Government promised a reforestation agreement immediately. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party, have stood in the House every week since October 7 asking the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) or the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) where that agreement is. They have told us it may be ready next week or next month.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It was signed in November.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister says it was signed in November. How can he say that without smiling? Well, he is smiling. I can see why he would. Where is the tree planting, the road building, and the reforestation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Patience.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He says "patience". This is planting season, Mr. Speaker. You do not plant trees in the winter-time or in the fall. If that agreement is not signed soon we will lose tens of thousands of seedlings and another planting season. The tree planters of my constituency have brought their contracts. On those contracts it says that the job will proceed subject to the signing of the forestry agreement with the federal Government. There are thousands of those agreements in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. The entire reforestation industry is poised ready to provide jobs, and the Government refuses to sign the necessary forestry agreement. We suggested that it be pulled out of the greater agreement if that was the hold-up, but they would not do that.
The Government said it would be providing funds for more research and development in the forestry sector. That was before forestry research was cut by $3.5 million in the November statement. The Government then said it was going to start a National Forestry Internship Program to provide student jobs. That has not been done, Mr. Speaker. The Government said it was going to start an Indian Lands Forestry Program.
That has not been started either, Mr. Speaker. It said it would give more tax incentives to enable the forest industry to develop new technology and product lines. That was a $60 million promise for this year but British Columbia has received nothing. The Government promised $10 million in enhanced funding for the fishery sector. The Estimates show only $1.6 million for the fisheries sector under the Pacific Salmonid Enhancement Program. There was supposed to be $5 million for the agricultural program and $5 million for the Freshwater Fisheries Enhancement Program. We have seen no money for either of those programs. The federal Government was going to provide loans to fund a voluntary boat buy-back program to reduce the size of the West Coast fleet. That has not been done. As a matter of fact, the only thing the Government did was to levy user fees on fishermen, increasing total fees by $6.3 million following the November statement.
Where are those commitments and promises, Mr. Speaker? When will the Government deliver? Is eight months not long enough? Never in the history of our Parliament has a Government waited so long before introducing a budget. It is disappointing that the federal Government, when one considers the promises it has made, has not acted more quickly to provide assistance to the people of that hard pressed part of British Columbia on whom the present provincial Government has simply turned its back.
With respect to energy and mines, the Government has not fulfilled its promise of a new taxation system for northern workers. There has been no mention of its promise of a portable pension plan for miners, which is particularly important in British Columbia. The Government has not taken any action with respect to new tax incentives to encourage mineral exploration. I could go on with other unfulfilled promises.
When Hon. Members opposite are discussing the Budget with their Ministers, I urge them to recognize that British Columbia is suffering some special pains. The people in that part of Canada have been abandoned by their elected representatives in the provincial Government.
The Government has said repeatedly that it is the private sector that will create the jobs. This may apply to central Canada, to some extent, where the recession has been lightened and businesses are in fact expanding. However, room for expansion in the private sector in Atlantic Canada and the far western part of Canada is simply not there. The small and medium sized business sectors want very much to expand but there is no demand for their goods or services. People are not prepared to spend their savings on new cars or appliances, expand business operations or begin ranching operations when that part of the country has the highest level of unemployment and a deteriorating economic situation. It has absolutely no political, economic or social leadership.
It is time the Government realized that it has a special obligation to that part of Canada, that it must make some provisions in its Budget to provide relief for the people of British Columbia. The provincial Government has turned its
May 15, 1985

back on that part of Canada. It is up to the federal Government to show the appropriate leadership by giving British Columbians, like all Canadians, a sense of hope. That hope can only be realized when people have a dream for the future. An old Hungarian proverb states that where there is no dream the people perish. In British Columbia there is no dream, just a nightmare.
The federal Government has the obligation to provide that dream through leadership in such areas as the forest sector. It can show that it is committed to the development of programs to encourage research and development that will allow the forest sector to expand into new product lines, plant modernization and the development of new markets.
The Government can provide leadership by assisting the agricultural sector in the same way. That leadership is not shown by abandoning a Crown corporation like Canagrex. In its first year of operation that Crown corporation discovered hundreds of millions of dollars of new market opportunities for the food producers in Canada. Many of those producers are from western Canada, including British Columbia. The federal Government in its wisdom decided to abandon that assistance program and not use it to find new markets for the food producers in British Columbia and other parts of Canada. I raise the question of Canagrex because it is an example of a direction the Government should not be taking with respect to that sector.
We have submitted many suggestions for the Government's upcoming Budget that will assist the people of British Columbia and all Canadians. I beg the federal Government, its Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when they bring down the Budget, to recognize the particular plight faced by the people of British Columbia. They have particular difficulties and a need for assistance in the restructuring of almost every major sector of the economy. It is time for some special and extraordinary consideration for that part of Canada. I encourage the Government to allow us to get on with the proper development of that province to its fullest potential.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to change the tone of the debate here today. I believe it is time for us to take a more positive attitude in this country. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has not proposed one positive solution for the problems facing the people of British Columbia, problems of which we are aware.
I replaced a man who resigned his seat in the House of Commons to run provincially. After listening to the first ten minutes of the speech by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, I thought for a moment that he would be running provincially. He has lost sight of the fact that we are representatives of British Columbia at the federal level. I realize that solutions can be made at the federal level as well as the provincial level, but the co-operation that is required from the provincial Government, whether it is Social Credit, NDP or Liberal, in order to achieve those solutions will not be achieved if we continually take a confrontational approach. The election
Supply
is over. We must work together as Canadians to begin programs that will benefit the Hon. Member's constituents as well as mine.
I stand in the House today as a small businessman who gave up my business because of the plight of British Columbians and all Canadians. The plight they face is the result of the devastation brought on by the Liberal Government and its coalition friends, the NDP. Today I saw them applauding together, as they always have, over the destruction of this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Try to be positive.


Gerry St. Germain: Let's talk about the most important resource and the most important industry we have in British Columbia softwood lumber.


Nelson Andrew Riis: People are the most important. That is where you are wrong. You think it is a bloody tree! You think trees are more important than people!


Gerry St. Germain: We did not disturb the Hon. Member during his speech and this does not call for heckling. We have the Hon. Member upset.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You say that trees are most important in the Province of B.C. That is precisely the point; "Let's get coal, let's get codfish".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerry St. Germain: Let us examine the forest industry in which most British Columbians are employed. Those Members stand up in the House every day to slam our best trading partner and best friend, the United States of America. They are jeopardizing the very industry in which British Columbians have jobs today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are putting up tariff walls against the softwood industry.


Gerry St. Germain: That party is totally irresponsible.
On a more positive note, the Hon. Member referred to Expo '86. That will be one of the greatest success stories this country has ever seen because Canadians will make it succeed in spite of the negative approach by the Hon. Member and his Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let's bet on that.


Gerry St. Germain: I will bet on that any time. We are the leaders in this country and we will show what leadership is. We will make Expo '86 succeed in spite of those Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Does the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) wish to respond?


Nelson Andrew Riis: You bet I would, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Are you going to talk about doom and gloom?

May 15, 1985
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is easy to talk about doom and gloom if you come from British Columbia. I respect the Hon. Member, but I think he really betrayed his true opinion when he said that the most important resource in that province, and probably Canada, is trees. It is not young people, elderly people, workers, managers, entrepreneurs or industrialists. Trees are the most important. He said it. I cannot believe that he would have that kind of courage. That is where he is coming from and that is that. I will have to mute my criticism because I understand that particular perspective.
Let us be positive. If he wants to help British Columbia, Let him sign a forestry agreement, a tourism agreement, sign a mining agreement and sign an economic development agreement. B.C. is the only province now in Canada where that has not been done. It is the Minister's responsibility. It is the Government's responsibility. It is not ours in the NDP. It is not theirs in the Liberal Party. You are the Government. You are supposed to be signing those agreements. Why is it that British Columbia is the last province to receive that kind of financial support? We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government. Deliver it. Help out. Be positive.


Mr. Manly:: Get the money.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks the ramifications will be to his province of the planned investment by a Canadian pulp and paper company to construct a paper mill in Washington State? We gather that will compete directly with the producers in British Columbia. Will that make things better or worse for the people in the Province of British Columbia?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a tough question, Mr. Speaker. I will give it a try. I appreciate the point. When the Hon. Member was speaking, I remembered the announcement a few months ago about how the Government had assisted to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in the development of a new copper mine in Peru and how our taxpayers' money was being used to develop that copper mine to compete with the copper mines in the Highland Valley and other parts of Canada. It is the same type of approach, Mr. Speaker. It is very thoughtless. If you like, it is based on the assumption that what is good for business is automatically good for the country, it is good for everybody. I am not saying that everything business does is bad. Of course not. I am saying that we must not as responsible parliamentarians have the approach that what is good for any pulp and paper company or any copper company or any industry is automatically good for the entire country. That is not the case.
Concerning the question my hon. friend asked, we have to look very carefully at how we support industry. If we are going to support industry, it is through the tax system or through grants, but for gosh sakes let's make absolutely certain that it is in the best interests of Canada and Canadians and, in this case for today of British Columbians.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at how far behind events the socialists are in this House. I just listened to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis): say: "sign a forestry agreement, sign a tourism agreement, sign an agricultural agreement" in very dramatic fashion. I do not know where the Hon. Member has been. Does he not realize that a release was issued this morning pointing out that we have reached an agreement with the Province of British Columbia


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All I can say is that is about bloody time, after about eight months of waiting, that we have got that particular agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Always doom and gloom.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I came from British Columbia I would be proud. I would feel that it is an honour to come to Ottawa and tell the people of Canada about my province, that it is one of the finest provinces in which to live.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: He was against Expo '86.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When we read this motion which the Hon. Member has put before us, talking in terms so negative about his provincial government and, of course, about the federal government-


John Horton McDermid: And about Expo '86.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I would like to show the contrast through a joint press release that was issued this morning. I will read if I may:
The British Columbia and Federal Governments have reached agreement on a $525 million Economic and Regional Development Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The announcement goes on.


An Hon. Member:: What do you say now, Manly?


James Douglas Manly: It is falling short.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The announcement goes on:
The announcement was made jointly today by Industry and Small Business Development Minister Bob McClelland and the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, Federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It goes on:
The five-year agreement, with each government contributing 50 per cent or $262.5 million, will provide joint funding for provincial initiatives in forestry,
May 15, 1985

industrial development, tourism, agriculture, mineral exploration and development and science and technology.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It goes on:
McCelland and Stevens expressed pleasure that an agreement has been finalized.
It continues:
The federal government is well aware of British Columbia's program for economic renewal and this agreement will allow the province to move ahead without any additional delay-
That is attributed to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It continues:
McClelland said the $525 million in joint funding clears the way for provincial government action in priority spending areas.
Let me just divert from the press release. I think it should be made abundantly clear that what the NDP did during the negotiations with the Province of British Columbia is unfor-giveable. The NDP cast doubt on our negotiations. The NDP indicated there was some doubt whether we would reach a final agreement-


Nelson Andrew Riis: $600 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I can only tell you, Mr. Speaker, through that entire period there was the best of faith on both sides, namely, the provincial government and the federal government, in arriving at the agreement we announced today.


John Napier Turner: It was $650 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The press release goes on to state:
The Minister noted that the discussions with the federal government during the ERDA talks have also resulted in the establishment of a framework under which the two governments will also share equally in the spending of an additional $450 million under the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
The net effect of this IRDP agreement, which I anticipate will be finalized at a meeting of industry ministers-
That is of the other provinces, the territories, and the federal government to be held in Vancouver on May 27. The release continues:
-will see our two governments jointly spend a total of $575 million over the next five years on economic development here in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The press release goes on:
There could be no better proof that there is a new and productive relationship between the federal government and the province.
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker. What a contrast with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Opposition itself and certainly with the socialists. We are here to help build British Columbia, to help build Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: How many B.C. Members are over there?
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We are not here to go out of our way to tear B.C. down and discredit some worthwhile enterprise in that fine province.
The press release continues:
To my mind, it demonstrates that governments working in a co-operative fashion, can together develop mutually acceptable and fair agreements in the interests of job-creation and new economic activity.
That is Mr. McClelland speaking.
In short, I am very pleased to say that not only were we able, where the former Government was unable, to conclude an ERDA agreement on November 23 last year with the province, but once that agreement was in place we were able to work out the funding to which I have referred and have now in place the various agreements that will be signed, including a forestry agreement to be signed very shortly by the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) in the amount of $300 million alone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, there may be Members from British Columbia on that side of the House who do not believe in their province, but I can tell all citizens of British Columbia that there are 19 Members of Parliament on this side of the House who put British Columbia first and foremost, and that it is as a result of their efforts that such favourable ERDA funding has been arranged. When I say that, we must bear in mind that this is the largest by far of any funding arrangement of an ERDA nature which has been agreed to between the federal Government and the Province of British Columbia.


An Hon. Member:: In history.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In history.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How does it compare with other provinces?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again that socialist friend of mine is catching up. Province by province the funding which British Columbia is receiving, any way one wants to look at it, is one of the highest that we have been able to sign to this date. There is no doubt about that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: "One of".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As far as I am concerned-and the Hon. Member will see the various agreements which will be concluded as a result of this funding-it is something that we can all be proud of. I can assure him that the Government of Canada is very pleased with the arrangement we have been able to arrive at.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It took an Opposition Day motion to get this announcement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I guess you have to give credit when credit is due. Maybe the Hon. Member gave us a nice platform, but it certainly was not, in the slightest, his efforts or

May 15, 1985
Supply
the efforts of any of the opposition Members that led to the conclusion of this agreement. It was scheduled for today and the Hon. Member conveniently gave us a motion to which we could respond to make the official announcement. I thank him very much.
Let me conclude by saying that I think it is a fine agreement, certainly for Canada, certainly for the people of British Columbia, but it is just one type of funding into which we have entered to help. If one listens to the words of my hon. friend, one might have the feeling that the federal Government is doing nothing. That is the typical doom and gloom type of atmosphere which the NDP seems to love to foster. That is its stock in trade-to pull down, to destroy, to belittle. Let us not overlook the record.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Remember what happened to Frank Miller. He said the same thing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the fiscal year just ended, the total ERDP cases which have been offered and accepted in British Columbia were for $17.5 million and were 81 in number. The Defence Industry Productivity Program awards were four in number, totalling $13.8 million. ILAP amounted in one case to $1,300,000. The Native Economic Development Program had three cases for about $500,000 in total. The Hon. Member referred to the plight of small business. In many cases I agree that it is a problem, but the Small Businesses Loans Act had guarantees in favour of 3,874 firms for a total of $105,660,000. Shipbuilding through SIAP had 17 awards for $3.7 million. The Western Transportation Industrial Development Program had one award for $181,000; the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, CIRB, $625,000; Federal Business Development Bank loans to 410 companies for $73,684,000. In those items alone we have over $200 million worth of loan, guarantee or grant type assistance for those who are in business in British Columbia. Perhaps the NDP does not like to hear of that, but as far as we are concerned there are people and businessmen to be helped in British Columbia. We have been doing it, we will continue to do it, and we will continue to show fine leadership, notwithstanding the negative motion of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a question, if I could, to the Minister who is enjoying, in his smugness, his own delicious self-satisfying words. This morning we called the communications advisor to the Minister and asked her whether there was to be any release or announcement today on these agreements which he just announced. She said: "No". I consider that to be a direct misrepresentation from the Minister's senior staff in an attempt, I suppose, to try to lure in the NDP or myself. I consider that completely misleading, and I will tell him that I will not trust his Department again. We asked a specific question. I want the Minister to look into this, and I want an apology from the Minister on behalf of his staff for having incorrectly responded to our question which was quite direct.
He was given his little smug time in the House this afternoon-


An Hon. Member:: Did it affect your speech?


John Napier Turner: It did not affect my speech at all. The Minister responsible for research and development can smile, but if that is the kind of tactics which this Government is going to use in response to a question from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the civility about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talks is not going to last very long in this House.
We called again just after the Minister made his announcement to ask for a copy of that release. The same people said: "The release has not yet been prepared. We can't give you a copy". Take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker, that we will know how to deal with this Minister in future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not aware of the conversation which a representative from the Official Opposition Leader's office apparently had with an official in my Department, but I can tell you there may have been an honest-


John Napier Turner: A deliberate lie, that is what it was.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Not from the Minister, from his staff.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There may have been an honest misunderstanding, because the truth is that it was not until this morning that the Cabinet of British Columbia gave its final agreement to what has now been announced. We waited for that. Second, the drafting of the release took place at that moment when British Columbia sent on telex what it felt would be the suitable joint release. In turn we replied. That release, if it has not been released, is certainly being put out in British Columbia and in Ottawa currently. My understanding is that it is already out. The thing that I want to emphasize is that Mr. McClelland announced this in the B.C. legislature, certainly if not before Question Period during Question Period in this House. There was absolutely no intention on our part to withhold information or, certainly, to mislead the Leader of the Opposition or his staff in the way he has indicated.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister. I have listened quietly to the debate all afternoon. Coming from Ontario, I was very happy for the people of British Columbia. I listened to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) knocking Expo '86. He said that it was not going to be a success and he was making bets across the floor of the House that it would be a failure. Does this type of attitude on the part of socialists in British
May 15, 1985

Columbia encourage tourism in that province? Does it encourage people to visit Expo '86? Is this the type of thing Members of Parliament should be doing for their own provinces?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, of course not. I think it is time that we in this House, to a Member, got supportive of Expo '86. When I was in the Far East, I was very pleased to hear people from Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and other areas indicate that they were looking forward to coming to Expo '86; some of them were looking forward to having pavilions at that fine exposition. As far as I am concerned, this exposition is not just for British Columbia, it is a Canadian showcase and it is time we got behind it and made it a success.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one statement and follow it with a quick question. So that there is no misunderstanding regarding Expo '86.1 did not in any way say that it was not an appropriate forum for developing a tourist infrastructure. The point I was making was that an awful lot of money was being spent and all indications are that it will be a losing proposition financially.


Gerry St. Germain: You wanted to bet on it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I said it will not be a financial success. That was my wager.


Gerry St. Germain: And I'll take it.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Do you want that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not what I hope will happen, it is what every analyst has indicated will happen. I am simply reflecting what those who have analysed the situation have said.
The Minister knew that he would be embarrassed today if he did not come up with a negotiated settlement. I am pleased to see that he has used this opportunity to say that an agreement has been signed. Would the Minister be prepared to indicate whether or not he will table this agreement? When will we know the precise details of it? When and where will they be made available? Literally thousands of people from that province have been waiting for months and months with pent up ambition, waiting to go ahead. When and where will the details of the agreement be made available so that we may release this pent up ambition?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member probably knows, the ERDA agreement has already been made public. It was signed on November 23. What we have agreed to with the Province of British Columbia is on the over-all funding that will take place under the ERDA, being $525 million. The first agreement to be signed will likely be signed by my colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). That is an agreement for $300 million which of course will be made public when it is signed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It hasnt't been signed yet.
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As I said, we have agreed on the over-all funding. We have agreed on which agreements will receive what amount of funding from the $525 million.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When will the signing take place?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Hon. Member had better ask my colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry. I would presume-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I'll ask you, you're responsible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would presume that he will sign it as soon as his counterpart in British Columbia is available, at a time convenient to both of them.


Mr. Merrithew:: Very soon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You said in October.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Very soon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The agreement is there.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Am I correct in understanding that there is no detail in the announcement? Is it my understanding that there are some dollar figures but that there is nothing that will allow work to begin tomorrow in the Province of British Columbia to implement this agreement? Are we still some time away from having the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) sign the forestry agreement which would then allow for planting, road construction and the like to begin?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there goes another one of the socialists demonstrating that he either does not understand or does not realize how the ERDA process works. Under the ERDA process there are subagreements, but before the subagreements are signed there is an agreement on over-all funding between the two jurisdictions. The forestry agreement is ready to be signed. It is not a question of any delay in the implementation. The only thing that was holding it up was the agreement on the over-all funding, and we now have that agreement. We know that $300 million will be devoted to the forestry agreement so that can be signed forthwith. The other agreements will be signed very, very quickly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time we have had an opportunity to deal specifically with issues affecting British Columbia. It is not often that the Parliament of Canada is used as a forum in which reflections are cast on the economic leadership provided by a provincial Government. I am not sure that it is wholly advisable as a practice to use the floor of the House of Commons to impinge upon the activities of a legislature of a sovereign province. To a certain extent, this motion deals with other jurisdictions, but it has been put. I feel that it may simply be theatrics on the part of members of the New Democratic Party.

May 15, 1985
Supply
A provincial New Democratic convention will be taking place in my riding at the University of British Columbia on Friday. Canadian Press has said the following about that convention:
This year's provincial New Democratic party convention may lack the excitement of last year's leadership race-
That is for sure. It is going to be a big yawn. It is going to be so dull that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) wanted to hype it up a bit this afternoon.
I believe we should primarily be concerned with our own jurisdiction and I will deal with that in a moment. However, I might suggest to the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, and to his colleagues, that the New Democratic Party happens to be part of the problem in British Columbia. The polarization between the Social Credit on the right and the NDP on the left has paralysed that province for several years. There is no feeling of compromise, there is no attitude of consensus and there is no civility in discussion. There is a crying need, I believe, for a moderate voice in that province. [Translation]
It cannot be said too often that the situation in British Columbia is extremely polarized. Instead of having a consensus, instead of having a civilized debate, there is perpetual confrontation, which makes for an extremely unhappy political environment.

That is why I believe that moderate voices will prevail. Hon. Members opposite may not agree, but I believe that there is an opportunity for Liberalism and for moderate voices to gain a threshold in the legislature of the Province and in the Parliament of Canada.
I believe that if one has suggestions to make to the Government of another jurisdiction, one should go to that jurisdiction and tell the Government about them in person. I did that in Kamloops last Friday when I was in the riding of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, and I did the same earlier in the day in Kelowna, the provincial riding of the Premier of the Province, the Hon. William Bennett. I talked about issues in which the federal Government had a joint role to play.
The most pressing issue facing the province in terms of investment for the future is education. It is the key to our future right across the country and is or should be the number one priority. Education in British Columbia is now in a shambles. There has been no commitment from either the provincial or the federal Government to rescue that situation. New technology is upon us and, unless the Province of British Columbia educates its young people to respond to that technology in terms of training, we will not be able to compete with the Pacific Rim, our natural market.
Retraining of members of our older workforce who are being replaced by machines and robots and affected by economic cycles over which they have no control is absolutely crucial. Technical education is fundamental to the future of British Columbia. If we are going to allow the young people of the province to reach their potential, to contribute to the
country and to retain hope in the country, then education must be given more attention than it has been given in British Columbia.
Yes, it is primarily a provincial jurisdiction. But, there is a federal role. When I was Minister of Finance I can recall negotiating post-secondary education agreements with the provinces. The idea was that 50 per cent of every dollar came from the taxpayers of Canada, as was authorized by Parliament, and 50 per cent came from the legislature of each province. The people of British Columbia, through their Government, have seen those federal funds, contributed to by the taxpayers of the country, diverted to the extent that next year, instead of the fifty-fifty relationship between the taxpayer and the country and the taxpayer and the province, the people of Canada will pay over 100 per cent for post-secondary education operating costs in British Columbia because the funds have been diverted from education for other purposes.
As a result, the universities in British Columbia are in trouble. The universities are losing their best researchers and professors. Student aid is also under attack, rendering less accessible university education to the broad population, regardless of family income or background. That investment is being neglected, primarily in British Columbia.
We want to reach out to the Pacific Rim and the markets of the Far East. We should be concentrating on educating our young people in British Columbia in the Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Far East languages. We should be learning their cultures and business practices in order to allow British Columbia to compete on a world scale. The Government of British Columbia is not meeting that challenge, nor is it responding to federal initiatives.
George Pedersen, formerly the President of the University of British Columbia, which is in my riding, resigned. He said:
What I find completely impossible to accept is the uncertainty and complete lack of planning that is going on in this province as it relates to our university system.
At the primary and secondary level the Minister of Education for British Columbia is now firing school boards. Well, I may disagree with the political opinions of some of the trustees in the Vancouver School Board, and other school boards, but those trustees were democratically elected. We have local school boards to better co-ordinate the priorities of the parents and the priorities of the teachers in the operation of the schools in individual communities. The schools are better run from the communities. The schools are not better run from Victoria, and they are certainly not better run from Ottawa. Those trustees were fired. I find that heavy-handed. I find the action Draconian. As I said in Kelowna, which is the constituency of the Premier, I find that action to be a rape of the democratic process.
I would like to speak about the medicare situation. The Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment said that the Government of British Columbia was violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canada Health Act in restrict-
May 15, 1985

ing billing numbers for doctors. Chief Justice McEachern said that the Government's conduct was: "Orwellian, Draconian" and "the antithesis of fundamental justice". In Kamloops last week I met with Dr. Rizhya Mia. She is the young doctor who raised the issue in the first place. She had a lot of guts. She stood up against the entire governmental structure of the Province to make her point and the point of young interns and doctors of the country. Now, despite that judgment, the Government of British Columbia is introducing Bill C-50, which attempts to circumvent the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canada Health Act and the judgment.
Last week when I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) he said that the federal Government would "maintain the integrity" of medicare. Where is the action by the federal Government? What has been done to maintain the integrity of the Canada Health Act and our universal medicare system? On this, as on other issues, we are getting great rhetoric from the Government benches, as we heard again this afternoon, although I have seldom heard it quite that smug. But we are not getting any action.
I believe the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was entitled to ask where the underlying agreements lie within the overriding umbrella of the ERDA. The Minister rose with some fanfare and said that there was a press release. This morning we were told that there would not be an announcement. We asked for the press release, but it had not been completed. The only thing which has happened is that the funding amount has been agreed upon at $525 million. None of the underlying agreements for forestry, mining, the environment, fisheries, or tourism have been signed. We are no further ahead. The Government managed, however, to present the press release in an attempt to embarrass the mover of the motion.
That $525 million is well short of the $650 million which the Province of British Columbia felt it was entitled to. In the reading of that press release, I noticed that the money would respond to provincial Government priorities. What concerns me is that the federal Government is not insisting on a national agenda for ERDA. It is all very well to respond to provincial priorities, but we have a national agenda for reforestation, fishing, mining and tourism. We will be putting further questions to the Minister and to the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) when we have those agreements, asking how that national agenda will be maintained. What guarantees do we have that the provincial Government will not divert funds from the underlying purposes of the agreement for other purposes, along the priorities which that particular province may set for itself, in complete denial and repudiation of the purpose of ERDA? It has been done in other areas and it can also be done here.
Fifty cents of every dollar in British Columbia comes from the forest industry. Reforestation is critical. Analysts have indicated that there are only 38 years of trees left in that province, maybe more or maybe less. The modernization of that industry must continue. The competition of trees which come from a shorter harvest in the southern United Sates,
Supply
Latin America and elsewhere is becoming more and more damaging for the Province of British Columbia.
The province needs research and development. We are not contributing to the technical innovation of the natural resource industries in British Columbia. I see nothing concrete in terms of research and development in British Columbia. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) admitted yesterday, before the committee, that the promise of the Prime Minister to double research and development, which he made during the election campaign, would not be realized within the term of this Government. It is another broken promise. We now know that research and development is no longer a priority.
I would like to deal with mining. The Mining Association of British Columbia, in its brief which was presented to the Standing Committee on Transport, said that transportation was absolutely fundamental to the infrastructure of the mining industry. We have heard nothing about that this afternoon. The mining industry in the Province of British Columbia is now competing world-wide against subsidized metallurgical competition, which is subsidized by governments and owned by governments which sometimes sell those metals under cost. That is what British Columbia is having to compete against.
A lot of geophysical research should be applied. We should be looking at new ways to discover ore bodies. At the moment the companies are not able to do that. In the last three years the mining industry in British Columbia suffered a total loss of one-third of a billion dollars. If we add provincial property taxes and hydro taxes-which, after all, are just taxes on gravity representing costs which must be passed on we see that money is not recoverable. In British Columbia we should be looking at taxes which are based on profits, not taxes which are taken at the root, making the cost infrastructure of the industry non-competitive world-wide.
I have not heard a commitment for small business. Nor have I heard much about tourism. What has happened to employment in the tourism industry in British Columbia is roughly equal to what has happened in the mining industry. It represents roughly 8 per cent to 9 per cent of the total employment in the province. When we realize what is happening to the mining industry and the challenge which faces the forestry and fishing industries, then tourism is obviously the most immediate way to take up the slack. I hope we will receive more information from the Minister about what the Government intends to do by way of a federal response. All we have seen so far are cuts to the Canada Wildlife Service, cuts to the Parks Canada budget and the raising of fees to enter those parks. That is no way to sponsor the tourism industry in British Columbia. The Government should be imaginative. It should be converting Garibaldi into a national park.
I would like to speak about trade. I have said repeatedly in this House, since having had the honour of representing the riding of Vancouver Quadra, that Canada is no longer simply an Atlantic or an Arctic nation, it is now also a Pacific nation. We must reach out to the markets in the Pacific Rim. The need is urgent and the infrastructure must be supplied under

May 15, 1985
Supply
the agreements to which the Minister so smugly referred. It is crucial for the long-term economic development and growth in British Columbia. At the moment the economy in the province is probably sustained only by mega-projects. In September of 1986, construction on Expo '86 will have been completed-and I want to say quite categorically, as I said in Vancouver, that I am a strong booster of Expo. I think it will add a lot to our traditions-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe Senator Jack Austin, if I can refer to our colleague in the other place, deserves a lot of the credit for putting it through, and we are going to give it all the support we can. There comes a time when every province and every country has to show itself off to advantage, and I think the trading possibilities, as we welcome millions of people from the Far East, the Pacific Rim and the west coast of the United States, will be of great advantage to the province. I happen to be the only Member of Parliament who sat here both as the Member from Montreal during Expo 1967 and the Member from Vancouver for Expo '86.1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they were and are worth-while ventures.
In September of 1986 the construction for Expo'86 will be completed. The advanced rapid tranpsort line will be completed. The Annacis Island bridge and the Coquihalla highway will be completed. There will not be any more of those mega-projects to boost the very weak economy of the Province of British Columbia which has the second highest unemployment rate in the county. So we have a very crucial and vital year ahead of us, which is why this debate has a good deal of relevance.
What we have at the provincial level is the New Democrat-ic-Socred split-the confrontation I have already described- and the people of British Columbia are getting tired of looking at the same old faces, the same old ideas and the same outlook of that legislature. The Members of that legislature remind me of two punch drunk boxers who are still fighting the battles of yesteryear. We need a new attitude, some new moderation and some new political voices in the Legislature of British Columbia. This confrontation is frustrating both growth and investment.
At the federal level, it is good to see, for a change, so many Conservative Members in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am talking about Hon. Members from British Columbia. The only time we ever hear from them is when they are flapping their fins as if they were trained seals behind the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). What have we heard from these 19 Conservative Members? They have been the most invisible, anonymous and silent group of Members of Parliament who were ever elected to the House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: We are working.


John Napier Turner: I asked some high school students at the Kelowna secondary school whom they could name as their Conservative Members of Parliament, and they hadn't the faintest idea.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: There are 1,500 students in the school.


John Napier Turner: Fifteen hundred students were at that meeting. It was broadcast live throughout the whole of the Okanagan Valley by two radio stations. It was the first real representation the people from the Okanagan have received for some time.
I have known the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) for a long time, Mr. Speaker. He brought in a fishery treaty on West Coast salmon, but not a single Member of Parliament saw that treaty before it was initialled. And we have deep problems in fishery. The catch is limited. With all the technology available to that industry, it could take the catch in four or five days if it went at it all at once. We need a salmon enhancement program desperately. And we have to look at reforestry because the silt which is a result of the failure to reforest is plugging our spawning grounds. But the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans brings in a treaty which no one saw before it was signed.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) brought in her so-called oil and energy deal. She still has not settled the natural gas question which is very important to British Columbia. She also has not fulfilled the government promise of the Vancouver Island pipeline. We are very anxious to see what happens to that.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) had to admit yesterday that the promise of the Conservatives to double research and development was a fiat and empty piece of rhetoric. That Party is long on rhetoric, but short on solutions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am glad to see those Hon. Members here, as I am sure you are, Mr. Speaker, those 19 Hon. Members. This may be the first time we have ever heard from them. Get their names. Here they are for the first time.


An Hon. Member:: They are phantoms.


John Napier Turner: I think they are phantoms. What about the Prime Minister's commitment to British Columbia? He has travelled far and wide. He has been to New York-he borrowed a black tie and put on his Gucci shoes. He has been in Washington and he has been in London for a photo opportunity with the Queen. He has been to Bonn where he saved the world. But he has only made one trip to western Canada since the election. On St. Valentine's Day, February 14, he had a love-in session in Regina where not one single problem affecting western Canada was dealt with. But he has not been to British Columbia since September 4.
May 15, 1985


An Hon. Member:: How many times are you out there?


John Napier Turner: I am out there every three or four weeks representing the riding of Vancouver Quadra.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 1 invite the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and if any of the 19 trained seals here from British Columbia can get his ear at the next caucus meeting, they can tell him that I invite him out to British Columbia to look at the food banks, the unemployment ranks, our native people on the streets looking for jobs, and the lost hope. I invite him to look into the eyes of our young people. I would like to show him around and let him see the concern of the people of British Columbia.
When I graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1949, there were Chamber of Commerce billboards saying, "Business is moving to B.C. We have men to match our mountains". It was not, in those days, a question of whether or not we were going to get a job; it was a question of what job we were going to choose. That is not the situation today. The unemployment rate in the Province of British Columbia, particularly for our young people, is acute. I agree on one particular point with the Hon. Member who introduced this motion, that is, that the potential is there. It is still an unlimited frontier. Now is the time to expand, not to retrench in British Columbia. It is the time to raise the horizons of the province, not to lower them. It is the time to restore the hopes of our young people, not to dash them. I look to the future, and within the scope of the motion put by the Hon. Member, I hope he can avoid the quarrels which have paralyzed that province for almost a generation. Let us give up the old fights and get away from what I see as a punch drunk boxing posture. Let us get on to something positive.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question. I certainly enjoyed the comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). Although he got swallowed up in negativity toward the end, he was somewhat positive as he began, especially when he talked about Expo '86. As one of the 19 Members from British Columbia who worked quietly behind the scenes to help to make that ERDA agreement work-which, by the way, is five times what the previous Liberal Government ever came up with in my province-I do take exception to his comment about seals. If it comes to a decision between acting the way his gang of four act as they sit behind him every day in the House of Commons, and acting quietly behind the scenes in the way we act, I will choose the latter every time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Parliament. I have been listening for some time now and I am learning about procedure in the House of Commons. I am doing my best to learn as much as I can. I do recall on several occasions, during Question Period in particular, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party demand-
Supply
ing that major announcements be made in the House of Commons. Our Minister has done just that. I wonder if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not comment and perhaps compliment our Minister on making that ERDA announcement right here where it belongs.


John Napier Turner: I wish I could, Mr. Speaker. He made an announcement as to the funding, which is $525 million, but it is $125 million less than the Province of British Columbia expected.


Thomas Edward Siddon: How much did the Liberals offer, John?


John Napier Turner: That is all he did. There are no underlying agreements signed. The forestry and fishery agreements still have to be signed. The tourism agreement has to be signed. So it is a bit of a camouflage we have here today.
What really annoyed me, Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member-and it is a very good question, yes, the major announcement should be made in the House, and this is one of the few which has been made in the House-however, I will not forgive that Minister's staff for misleading me this morning as to whether or not an announcement was going to be made.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He was waiting for you outside.


John Napier Turner: And I want an apology from the Minister. I want an apology from someone.


Mrs. Collins:: Mr. Speaker, I think-


John V. Nunziata: Another stranger in the House.


Mary Collins: I am here all the time.


John V. Nunziata: Who goes there?


John Horton McDermid: Don't listen to Nunziata.


Mary Collins: I would like to make a comment and then ask a question. First, I resent some of the comments the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has made about the members of our Party from British Columbia. I may have been called a lot of things in my time, but I do not think I have ever been called invisible.


John Horton McDermid: He is nodding his head in agreement.


Mary Collins: I think he would agree, especially if he recalls last summer when we were on opposite sides of the bridge. I am also very disappointed because I would have thought that even he would have conceded that May 15 is a red letter day for British Columbia. Because of the work, the very hard work of members of the B.C. caucus in the Conservative Party, we have a signed agreement, an agreement which is, as my colleague said, five times greater than any agreement ever reached before.

May 15, 1985
Supply
I was also surprised by the Right Hon. Member's comment that he thought the priorities should be set in Ottawa. I will tell him that the people of British Columbia are tired of priorities being set in Ottawa. They want to be part of setting the priorities, and that is the kind of Government this is. We work jointly with the provinces to work out priorities which will create jobs and wealth for this country, including British Columbia.
The Right Hon. Member seems to write off all of our policy, so I ask him whether he would not agree that one of the most important steps-and he alluded to it-was the signing of the Western Accord on energy. As a result of that policy and the co-operative efforts of the federal and provincial Governments and I am sure he is aware of this-we had the announcement last week of a S600 million fertilizer plant in Vancouver. I talked to the people involved in that project last night and they said they had worked on it for five years but it was only after the Western Accord was signed that they could go ahead with confidence. That is a $600 million investment by the private sector. There are no government grants but there are jobs for Canadians. That is the kind of thing this Government is providing to the people of British Columbia.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very encouraging session. We are hearing some of these Members for the first time.


Mr. Mayer:: Where have you been?


John Napier Turner: I want to encourage them to make some speeches of their own rather than responding to
ours.


John Horton McDermid: Her comments were better than your whole
speech.


John Napier Turner: After eight or nine months of a Conservative Government, including 19 Members from British Columbia, all we have is the ERDA agreement, which was virtually ready for signature when the previous Government was defeated.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It was not.


John Napier Turner: So the Government signed that agreement. Eight months have gone by and all we have is a funding agreement, or a joint press release; we have no underlying agreement signed whatsoever.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No details.


John Napier Turner: So the announcement by the Minister today was a bit of spurious and deliberately coincidental camouflage.


John Horton McDermid: Jealousy does not look good on you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) on a question or comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Who?


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition when was the last time that his forestry critic stood in his place and asked the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) a question.


John V. Nunziata: We don't know who he is.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Because I can tell him that he has yet to ask a question on forestry on the floor of the House of Commons. That is how effective his forestry critic is. The Right Hon. Member waxes eloquent about forestry. I can tell him that his critic does not seem to be a darn bit interested in it, and 1 do not think he himself is interested in it either. What he is doing is just giving us empty rhetoric.
Let me come back to the National Energy Program because I was in Alberta when that happened. I was not here; I had been defeated. I was in Alberta when that program came out and I watched the blue collar workers go down the tube, and those people over there helped drive them down. It was not the big buck guys; it was the little guy who took the beating, and the Liberals were ably supported by the NDP. It was the Right Hon. Member's Government that did it.
If we want to get a little bit personal about it, let me tell him what I did when I was defeated. They said to me, "Brisco, you have got to take your severance pay"; what is it, the pension fund? They said I have to take my pension money. So I took it and invested it in Canadian oil stocks. The Liberals brought in their program and my stocks went right out the window.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: It was his Government that did it. Sure, you people think it is funny, but I can tell you that to buy them back is going to cost me $20,000.


John V. Nunziata: We can't help it if you are a lousy investor.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Who the hell can afford it? But they sit over there and grin. Sure, you are a self-satisfied bunch of turkeys.
Let me give you another example. The people in my riding invested in a major hotel in Fort St. John. They invested in their country and their province. Then you brought in your program, the hotel went down the tube and Fort St. John became a ghost town. Don't you sit in your places and tell us what the hell to do! We're going to turn this country around, we're going to do the job that you totally failed to do. You are just useless!


John Napier Turner: 1 am glad the Hon. Member got it out of his system.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment just to compliment the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). This man sat down with us hour after hour in negotiations as we worked out an agreement. We worked out that agreement in consultation and conciliation, something that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and his group never understood. The time has come in the history of this country when we are going to go forward
May 15, 1985

again, and we are going to do that in spite of the negative comments from the NDP-


John V. Nunziata: That is not what Frank Miller said.


Gerry St. Germain: -betting against the success of Expo and against-would you mind being quiet?


John V. Nunziata: Oh, you do not like hearing about Frank Miller?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said that he wanted to be positive. If that is true, how could he possibly get up and discuss the situation in a province? Under our Constitution the provinces have the right to run their business the way they see fit. We should not even be discussing the business of B.C., we should be discussing the business of the federal Government, business such as that which was brought forward today.
I honestly believe that the Right Hon. Member has an honest desire to help the people in Vancouver Quadra and the rest of the province, but if he wants to be positive, why is he getting involved in such a negative approach? He questioned tourism, and that was mentioned today; he questioned mining, and that was mentioned today. He stated as fact that there was no R&D in the forest industry, a natural resource which was neglected by his Party. They never put any money in R&D. That is why the forest industry today is on its knees. They did not look after that natural resource when they were in government. They did not even have a Minister responsible for forestry. But this Government had that foresight. Would he comment on that, please?


John Napier Turner: I have no comment.


Gerry St. Germain: That Figures.


Mr. Belsher:: It is rather discouraging to realize that the opposition Members have failed to congratulate the Minister for the signing of this agreement. The Right Hon. Leader has at least spoken somewhat positively about British Columbia and is starting to represent his constituency in the province where we all come from. But given the gloom and doom we have heard from the NDP this afternoon, you would think it was a disaster area. I can tell you that it is not.
Having visited his constituency in the last several months, would the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition not agree that people there do Find that a consultative process is taking place in Ottawa, something we assured the people of Canada we would start during our tenure here in Ottawa?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the people of Vancouver Quadra feel that consultation is a very legitimate process but no substitute for decisions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for bringing this
Supply
motion forward. It was interesting to hear a bit of a debate between the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap about whether our most important resource was trees or people. Certainly I would agree with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that people are our most important resource, but I would like to emphasize that Government, both federal and provincial, are neglecting both. If we want to look at the neglect of our human resource, we need only look at the way in which the provincial Government is neglecting the issue of education. We can look at the way in which it fired school boards which refused to knuckle under to budget cut-backs and the way in which it refused to pass federal funding on to universities. And we can also look at the way in which the federal Government has acquiesced to that.
The Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) questioned the appropriateness of using an Opposition Day in the House of Commons to criticize the Government of a province. Coming from British Columbia as I do, I feel this is entirely appropriate and necessary. Unlike the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher), when 1 go back to my riding I find that in many ways it is indeed a disaster area because of the high level of unemployment. 1 do not know the situation in his riding, but the situation in my riding cries out for government action. We are not seeing that action soon enough.
It was interesting that the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) tried today to foist off on us the idea that everything had been agreed upon with regard to funding for the Province of British Columbia. I asked him about that yesterday and he was not able to give me an answer. A few weeks ago, Premier Bennett of British Columbia appealed to New Democratic and Progressisve Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia to try to get a decent deal from the federal Government on the issue of funding. Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia are now saying what a great job they have done. If any job was done, it was probably done on Premier Bennett by giving him the message that $525 million was absolutely the largest amount he was going to get rather than the $650 million which British Columbia had to expect under an ERDA agreement. The 19 Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia did the job on the Province of British Columbia rather than pushing the federal Government for adequate funding.
The importance of this debate can be seen simply by looking at the unemployment statistics. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that there would be tens of thousands of jobs. When we discussed unemployment statistics in Question Period on Friday, the Prime Minister claimed that some 201,000 new jobs had been created. He said, "Those are the tens and tens of thousands of jobs which we promised. Unlike the Liberals, we have delivered on our promise". The Prime Minister says he has kept that promise.

May 15, 1985
Supply
The people of British Columbia know that that promise has not been kept as far as they are concerned.
If 200,000 jobs were created across Canada, the people of British Columbia should have got 20,000 of them. Instead of
20.000	more jobs, British Columbia now has 23,000 fewer jobs than it had in September of 1984. It lost an additional 1,000 jobs last month. In September, 1984 there were 1,226,000 people employed in British Columbia. By April of 1985 that number had shrunk by 23,000 to 1,203,000. In September the unemployment rate was 14.1 per cent. In April it was 15.4 per cent. That is a 1.3 per cent increase. A recent study in my riding concluded that the real unemployment rate is 26 per cent. If British Columbia had taken the kind of initiatives taken by the Manitoba Government, and if our unemployment rate were at the same level as that in Manitoba, we would have
90.000	more jobs than we now have.
Statistics cannot begin to tell the real story of the poverty and misery which has been caused by this massive unemployment. We recognize that unemployment in British Columbia did not begin on September 4, 1984 when the present Government came into power. It is rooted in Social Credit policies which date back to the 1950s and 1960s and the sell-out program which was practised by the late W.A.C. Bennett, the father of the present Premier. At that time, our resources were alienated to large multi-national corporations which were interested in maximizing their profits. The people lost control over the planning and intelligent use of those resources. These policies were added to by the cut-back Budget introduced by the present Premier in 1983. All of this is compounded by the indifference of the Liberal Government over the many years that it was in power. The Liberals have now paid for their indifference, but the people of British Columbia continue to pay for that indifference and for the Social Credit and Conservative mismanagement of our economy.
In the last election, the present Government capitalized on the Liberal indifference. It made a number of promises, including one of a whole new era of co-operation with the provinces. To date, promised federal-provincial co-operation with the Social Credit Government has not led to any benefits for the people of British Columbia. The outstanding issue has been the failure to make a funding commitment for the ERDA agreement. The Government of British Columbia has knuckled under to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and agreed to a less than adequate sum for the ERDA agreement.
Where was the stumbling block between the federal and the provincial Governments? It certainly was not ideological. The federal Government and the British Columbia provincial Government are soul mates with regard to ideology. When the Social Credit Government introduced its cut-back Budget in 1983, the then leader of the Opposition said that it was a step in the right direction even though he would have done things slightly differently.
We have now seen the document of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) relating to cut-backs in the native policy area. We see that the difference between the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia is one of
style. It has nothing whatsoever to do with substance. The difference is that Bill Bennett's cut-back program of 1983 came with one great blow when he tabled 26 cut-back Bills on the same day as he introduced his Budget. The task force of the Deputy Prime Minister acts with slick media strategy, which includes news leaks, denials, and announcements of cut-backs on big news days of which little notice is given. However, the substance of the task force memorandum to Cabinet could have been written by any of the Socred Cabinet Ministers in British Columbia. I remind the people of Canada that there are five more cut-back strategy papers to come.
Let us look at some of the specific Tory promises. Shipbuilding is an important industry in the Victoria and greater Vancouver areas. The Tories promised $75 million in assistance to the shipbuilding industry. We see in this year's Estimates that $10 million has been cut from the shipbuilding assistance program. Last spring, when the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) was the official critic in that area, he promised immediate movement to the second phase of the Salmonid Enhancement Program. He stressed the urgency of getting involved in its second phase. One can see from the Estimates that we are stuck in the transitional phase. There is no real commitment to salmonid enhancement beyond what took place under the previous Government.

The Prime Minister signed the salmon treaty with the United States. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans encouraged him to do so, and now he is travelling in the United States and Europe while the fishery in British Columbia is in a shambles.
It is interesting to hear my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), talk about the very serious situation facing the gulf trollers while the Minister is travelling in Europe. Those fishermen have not had any indication of when they can start fishing. Therefore, they have been involved in a deliberate breach of the law in order to protest their situation.
The sports fishery is still facing a great deal of uncertainty about its future. While there is an allocation of some 270,000 Chinook, it is common knowledge that this will not nearly cover the demand made by the sports fishery on a yearly basis.
British Columbia was one of the last provinces to feel the effects of the current depression. At a time when other parts of Canada were beginning to feel the effects of a recession, the economy of British Columbia was reasonably healthy. However, when the recession did occur in British Columbia, I believe it hit British Columbia harder than it did other provinces. While people here were talking about a recovery almost a year ago, British Columbia has yet to recover from the recession. This is largely due to the action of the provincial Government, combined with the cut-back mentality of the federal Government.
The crisis in unemployment in British Columbia, Canada and the world today is not simply a political and economic
May 15, 1985

problem, but a cultural and ecological problem. They require both long-term and short-term solutions.
Let me say a few words about the cultural problems. There is a lag between employment in the 1980s and the way we approach it. We continue to approach employment in terms of the 1950s or 1960s when there were 40-hour work weeks 50 weeks of the year until the age of 65. The fact is that new techniques make a great deal of that type of employment redundant.
As presently structured, our society cannot handle that redundancy. Therefore, we deal with it by creating a kind of caste system. At the top of this system are people who continue to have relatively well paid, full-time jobs. As well, these full-time jobs have fringe benefits which also vary with the job.
The level next to that cast contains a growing number of part-time employees who are generally lower paid and have few or no fringe benefits. They are usually called to work during periods of peak activity at jobs involving a great deal of stress. We can see this approach being taken by many supermarkets and department stores. In many cases, these stores have very few full-time employees and an increasing number of part-time employees. Unfortunately, that is the position being taken by the federal Crown corporation, Air Canada. That is why there is a labour dispute in that area. As our Leader pointed out recently, these people do not want to be involved in the labour force only to make pin money. They need jobs that have real income.
At the third level of the caste are those who work on short-term, low paying projects. These are job-creation projects. It is interesting to note that in many parts of British Columbia today these job-creation projects cumulatively become the largest single employer in that province. It is unacceptable that these people must live in uncertainty by working from project to project for which funding is often sporadic. There is no need for people to be stuck in a low wage, short-term project ghetto, because jobs for which there is a need in our society could be provided with the proper funding and planning.
Finally, there is the question of the unemployed. There are 1.5 million people unemployed in Canada, 220,000 of whom live in British Columbia.
A letter from the British Columbia Forest Industry Employee Adjustment Committee to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) as well as to provincial Cabinet Ministers, tries to make some suggestions that will deal with some of these short-term cultural problems. It is important to recognize that this committee represents both union and management. It suggests that the entire British Columbia forest industry should be designated and thus be eligible for federal help. It suggests that there should be a program under that designation for voluntary early retirement at the age of 56 and that there should be such things as enhanced unemployment insurance benefits and skill upgrading. The committee makes the point that this will make a more effective use of Government funds by allowing some older workers to retire early,
Supply
leave the labour force with a decent income and allow younger workers who are presently on unemployment insurance or welfare to have a chance to work.
The committee points out the very serious problems in the forest industry in British Columbia. The letter states:
Over the past 5 years the number of production employees in the B.C. Coast Forest Industry has declined by 14 thousand. Of these, approximately 3,000 workers lost their jobs due to permanent closures and 7,000 to technological change. Most of the 14 thousand people are now unemployed and have no realistic prospects for returning to work. In addition, several thousand currently employed workers are working less than full time.
That is one reason why Members from our Party sometimes sound as if we were preaching gloom and doom. When we return to our ridings, we are faced with situations such as that.
I am very surprised that when Conservative Members return to their ridings they do not see the same situations. They stand in the House, take a Pollyanna-like attitude and say that everything is rosy. They want to defend the Social Credit Government in Victoria. They suggest that the federal Government has taken initiatives to help British Columbia, but I challenge them to say what the Government of Canada has done during the past eight and a half months to alleviate the unemployment situation in British Columbia. It has done absolutely nothing.
We have 23,000 fewer people working today than when the Government came to power, and the Government is responsible. It promised jobs but it has not delivered on that promise, and I think it is time that the Government did so. It has Finally been able to co-operate with the Government of British Columbia to the extent of issuing a joint press release. I would like to see those Governments co-operate to the point of creating jobs.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, let me make the observation that there is only one mistake in the motion put forward by the NDP today. It concerns the date. The date of the motion is May 15, 1985, but to be more accurate and to give a proper perspective to the motion it should read, May, 1973, May, 1974 or May, 1975. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. In that period, the NDP Government was in power in B.C. During that time, a provincial Minister of Mines by the name of Leo Nimsick introduced mining legislation that shut and slowed down every mine in B.C. Those that were not shut or closed down never started up. The whole mining industry from the associated service sector to the mining sector collapsed. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) knows what I speak of. All he has to do is to tell this House what the miners still remember about that legislation. It took 10 years for the industry in British Columbia to recover. Let us not shove all the blame on my colleagues in the NDP. They are the federal component. I am talking about their provincial element. It was the most pervasive and destructive piece of legislation to impact on a mining industry, an industry which is slow to respond. If any of those Members had a grain of sense, they would know that it takes a long time for the mining industry to crank up, and it is just beginning to crank up again in British Columbia.

May 15, 1985
Supply
We should also look at the federal Government during the same period. Let us deal with one mine named Polaris. Does it mean anything to anybody over there? Probably not. It was a proposal put forward by Cominco Limited for the most northern mine in the world in the Arctic. That proposal for the mine was before the Liberal Government for seven years. Here are the Departments that had to deal with it: Energy Mines and Resources, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Environment, Treasury Board, Transport, and National Revenue. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that no decision was ever reached? Nothing ever happened.
Let us look at today. The Conservatives have been in government for a period of seven months. Between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), Polaris came on line. Polaris was approved. It took two Departments, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Transport. That is all it took. That mine is in production today. By virtue of the experience of Cominco Limited and of the Inuit people as well as the partnership that Cominco reached with the Inuit, let me tell you about the next and final step. The richest zinc mine in the world known today rests at the northwest tip of Alaska. It is called Red Dog. When it was discovered, Cominco became interested. It is the newest zinc plant in the world, with the most modern state of technology and the cleanest operation. Cominco was immediately interested. This mine lies in a very sensitive environmental area. It lies in an area where the native people have their normal habitat. The Aleut of Alaska were approached by Cominco and by two giant American mining corporations. Do you know what the American mining corporations did, Mr. Speaker? They took the Aleut down to New York City, wined and dined them and said: "Have we got a deal for you?" What did Cominco do? It took the Aleut to Polaris. It said: "Meet your Inuit brothers. Here is how we work with them". Guess who took the deal? Cominco is going to be operating Red Dog. That is the kind of step that has evolved from the action of the Conservative Government of this Parliament.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, spoken like a true Socred. I hope my Liberal colleagues were listening to what the Hon. Member was saying. Some of them are getting a little bit sensitive after eight and a half months at having every failure of the present Government blamed on the previous Liberal administration. I hope they know that the Socreds, like my hon. friends, are going to go on doing that for 10 years. Every problem that has come up in B.C. for the last 10 years is blamed on the New Democratic Government from 1972 to 1975. It was the best Government British Columbia has ever seen.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that when the New Democratic Party was in government we saved industries and towns. We saved the town of Ocean Falls. Where is it now? We opened up the Action Mine. We had the only copper smelter in British Columbia.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Where is it now?


James Douglas Manly: When the Conservatives were running in the last election they promised there would be some $100 million for mining exploration. They promised money for research and development. Where is that money? When is the Government going to start delivering on some of those things? We have seen capital strikes in Canada before. We saw a capital strike in the mining industry when the New Democratic Party was in power. To be perfectly honest, Sir, I have not seen any influx of capital into Canada to open new ventures in the last little while.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are opposing it.


James Douglas Manly: Where are the mines right now? How many mines have been opened lately? We do not see capital coming in except to buy up established businesses like Mitel.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who is my neighbour to the south. In particular, I took great interest in his comments on the gulf troller situation which is blowing up, if I may use that terminology, in my riding today.
To give a bit of history, shortly after the Pacific salmon treaty was signed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) introduced Bill C-32 in the House of Commons which enabled him to allocate fish on the West Coast of Canada. That was two and a half months ago. That Bill was filibustered in committee by the Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). A lot of delay and confusion had taken place on the West Coast because of the delay by the NDP. We now understand, as that Bill is about to be brought back to the House of Commons, that it will be again delayed by the NDP. The irony is that it is the commercial fishermen, whom they pretend to protect, who will be hurt by that, because the Minister cannot issue spot closures to the sports fishermen out there.
In reality, the delay of Bill C-32 is harming the fishermen of all user groups on the West Coast. I must ask my colleague from Vancouver Island why his colleague, the Member for Comox-Powell River, and his Party are doing everything they can to delay passage of that Bill and not give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the tools he needs to get the job done.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in connection with Bill C-32, we saw some very serious problems with that Bill. We wanted a chance to discuss those problems with the Minister. Naturally, we insisted on a full debate in this House and in committee. It is interesting that it is only when the Conservatives had a gun put to their heads that they consented to hear Indian people who have very serious concerns about that Bill. The Conservatives then forced the committee to sit all night. I think this was doing an injustice to witnesses who had been called to Ottawa. The Conservatives said they were in a hurry to get the Bill to the House. They forced sittings of the committee around the clock. We have had six Opposition Days in a row because the
May 15, 1985

Government is not prepared to bring forward its legislation. I have never heard such a bunch of hypocrisy in my life.


John Horton McDermid: That is nonsense.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of my colleague. It is a question concerning a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. I understood that this became a prominent federal election issue and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) made some very explicit promises that such a pipeline would be built. The Conservative Party and the Province of British Columbia committed themselves to that project.
Is the Hon. Member aware of any efforts on behalf of the Government now to reach an agreement with the Province of British Columbia to build that pipeline? Does he think the people of British Columbia, particularly the people on Vancouver Island, can expect to see that pipeline built in the near future?


James Douglas Manly: That is a very good question, Mr. Speaker. If election promises built pipelines, we would have seen that pipeline built many, many times in the past 19 years. I think it was first promised by the Socreds back in 1966. It has been promised at every election since then, and now even the Socreds have the good grace to blush when it is raised. The Hon. Member has not been in politics that long, so he does not feel that he has any obligation to blush for past promises. Certainly he made that promise. I believe that when we see the stairway to paradise, we will see the pipeline to Vancouver Island.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate today, notwithstanding the pessimistic language of the motion before the House. I think all Members would do their constituents greater justice if we spoke in a constructive way about the very important issues not only before the House today but before the country and for which we all have a tremendous responsibility.
I was somewhat dismayed by the partisanship and the tendency on the part of the Opposition not to be willing to concede good news when indeed there is much good news for Canadians to be thankful, even at this early stage under this new administration.
Without a more co-operative relationship being struck between the federal Government and the provincial Governments, organized labour and the private sector, we would fail to address adequately the serious economic dilemma facing the country. At the present rate of accumulation of the national deficit, our accumulated aggregate public deficit will equal our Gross National Product by 1990. At the present time it is less than 50 per cent of our Gross National Product. Notwithstanding the braying and the alarm being expressed by opposition Members, I think they realize as well as we do that we will have to take significant measures in a spirit of co-opera-
Supply
tion if we are to restore to Canadians, in particular young Canadians, the sense of opportunity and stability which was gifted to us by our ancestors, those who went before us.
I am proud of the obvious and premeditated plan of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to seek a greater consensus, to sow seeds of goodwill in both official languages from one end of the country to another, as precedent to difficult decisions and important positive measures the Government could take to create a more optimistic and confident climate in the country of which we are all proud.
In the debate on this rather pessimistic motion, I hope the NDP and its cohorts to the right in the Official Opposition will recognize that since September 1984, 201,000 new jobs have been created in Canada compared with only 70,000 in the same period of time the year previous. It is a new year and there are new things happening. The bank rate has fallen two percentage points in the last six weeks. It is currently at a level of 9.9 per cent, the lowest level of the bank rate since the defeat of the Trudeau Government in 1978. Export sales have risen substantially, by nearly $9 billion in March of this year. Already, notwithstanding the alarm being expressed with respect to promises which the Opposition would have us fulfil overnight, there is growing confidence in the country and a new spirit of optimism on the part of all Canadians.
I must indicate that public opinion polls seem to support the notion that indeed we now have a Government in office which is setting about to manage the economy, not run it. I make that distinction quite deliberately. The NDP would have us believe that Governments are the only institutions which can properly manage and run an economy, and that this could be done by merely handing out more money. That is its approach. As the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) pointed out a while ago in the House, that approach was the hallmark of an unfortunate coalition federal Government between 1972 and 1975. When we consider what happened in British Columbia during that period, I think we see the beginnings of the economic dilemma facing Canada today. I might add that during that period the Finance Minister of Canada was the gentleman who now sits as Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner).
I do not mean to show any disrespect to any of these individuals, but these old attitudes, this living in the past, are not what Canadians want to hear these days. They want to hear of hope and optimism. Therefore, it is with some considerable degree of pride that I stand in the House today and compliment the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) for having completed and announced in the House of Commons this afternoon, where such announcements should be made, an important agreement and a conclusion to the negotiations for an economic and regional development agreement with British Columbia.
While we have some reason for concern about the current levels of unemployment in British Columbia, I have tremendous optimism that with the assistance of this agreement and its subagreement, and in co-operation with that provincial Government and other provincial Governments of all political

May 15, 1985
Supply
persuasions across Canada, we will indeed see the evolution of tens of thousands of new jobs from one end of the country to the other. I am growing rather tired of this pessimism. I suppose it is the role of the Opposition to be negative and the role of the Government to be positive. I think as Canadians, as honourable Canadians all, we should rise to a higher level of responsibility.
I have been in negotiation with my colleague in British Columbia, the Hon. Patrick McGeer, a former Liberal, concerning a subagreement on science and technology and its important role in creating new jobs and new economic opportunities in the province which I, together with my 18 colleagues on the government side, are proud to represent. On March 1, I signed with Minister McGeer a memorandum of understanding setting out the parameters of our co-operation. I expect shortly to announce a subagreement flowing from the economic and regional development agreement which was announced this afternoon by the Minister.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that it is essential to make our existing industries more internationally competitive, to raise their productivity and to use new technologies, so that they will be able to survive in an increasingly competitive external world. That will not be a sufficient solution to the problem facing this nation, nor will the solution be found in more government programs to hand out money, which some other entity presumably earns and pays to Government, in order to increase the role of the service sector in our economy. If we do not have a strong, productive workforce, we cannot afford to support a strong service sector. The only solution, as I see it, to creating new economic opportunity in Canada, is to apply the emerging technologies in the most progressive way we can, in a climate of entrepreneurialism and in an envrionment where we encourage young people to rise to the height of their academic and intellectual potential, and then go out and create the new nuclei businesses which will become the new large industries of tomorrow. It will only be through the adding of value to our resources, which we have traditionally harvested, consumed and exported, that we will add new jobs, the permanent jobs which the country needs.
Therefore, I am proud to stand in the House today to indicate that the Government is committed to raising our national investment in research and development in partnership, not by handing out federal dollars in massive increased amounts, with the provinces, the private sector and the municipalities. We are committed to raising our national investment in the application of science and the technological evolution which flows from science to meet new challenges. It is my confident expectation that by 1990, we will indeed see our national level of investment in research and development rise to the level of that of our major competitor nations around the world. It is my confident expectation that we will reach a level of investment of 2 per cent to .5 per cent of Gross National Product, which is characteristic of those other countries which have been so successful in the modern industrial world.
Returning to the British Columbia situation, I am proud to have entered into this memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Science in the Province of British Columbia and to be able to announce under the ERDA agreement an important subagreement in the amount of $20 million to aid in the strengthening of the already strong technological base in that province. To hear the Leader of the Opposition say that there is no high technology and research activity in British Columbia is merely indicative of the fact that he does not know his own province very well.
In fact, we have had many success stories in British Columbia, not only in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver but in the many communities throughout the province. What we need is to double and triple the activity levels of these companies and the new ones that are yet to come. These are the companies that can create true and lasting employment and the nuclei of new industrial opportunity throughout my province and the other provinces and Territories of Canada.
The thrust of the ERDA agreement which we are so pleased to have finalized today was reflected in a recent speech given in Trail, British Columbia. The next of that speech reads:
There is a new realism that we can't rely solely on our basic resource industries to carry us through the inevitable fluctuations of the international markets where our products must be sold. We have also to broaden and expand the economic base by attracting new job-creating investment, new industry and new types of economic activity, while at the same time work hard to develop new levels of productivity in our resource industries so that they can remain competitive.
The speech went on:
So what we are involved in is a dual process within our partnership for economic renewal. It is designed to encourage new growth and at the same time help our major industries, like forestry and mines, remain highly competitive in international markets.
While my colleagues and I have been accustomed to expressing these sentiments in every corner of Canada and in this very House, it is particularly significant to note that the recent speech from which I quoted was presented a few days ago in British Columbia by W. R. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia.
I am pleased to be able to say that this partnership agreement which we have struck with a Government of another political persuasion is not unlike the partnership and accord we have struck in the Province of Quebec with a Party of another political persuasion and indeed the partnership that we struck in the Province of Manitoba with the provincial New Democratic Party. I am saying that we can make much greater progress if we work together as a team irrespective of our political differences. I must call upon members of the Opposition to give at least some small measure of credit to the Prime Minister and to the Government for having managed to accomplish what a year ago would have seemed impossible, namely, a new spirit of co-operation, consensus and goodwill between the provinces and the federal Government irrespective of political persuasion.
The motion is in two parts. It decries the lack of economic leadership, but, as I have already indicated, the statistical
May 15, 1985

evidence proves the contrary. The second part of the motion suggests that the Government has failed to meet its campaign promises. Any reasonable minded person would have to concede that within its first eight months of office, a new Government could not be expected to fulfil all of its promises unless, of course, it is the view that promises translate into hand-outs or into redistributing chunks of cash that we obtain from the taxpayers to other people who happen to get in line first. That is not the style of this Government.


Mr. Waddell:: Like the ERDA agreement.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The priority of this Government is to work in partnership-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is the ERDA agreement? Don't be a hypocrite.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If the Hon. Member would give me an opportunity to respond, 1 would be happy to respond. The ERDA agreement represents seed money, the kind of effective investment by Government which does not buy jobs but makes a down payment on them. It flows from a partnership between two levels of Government and draws the municipal and regional levels of Government into the mix with the private sector and, hopefully, in many cases with the use of investment and resources from organized labour and other sources. I am speaking of the federal Government creating a positive climate and attitude together with its provincial partners.
Hon. Members opposite certainly do not expect promises to be fulfilled within a matter of a few weeks or a few months. I would suggest that if they are patient and watch the trends in the indices, they will see a significant improvement in the unemployment rates within the next two or three years and indeed they will see tens of thousands of new jobs from one end of the country to the other.
We have to create a more industrially intensive economy, bearing in mind the fragility of our environment and the importance of using our resources wisely. Therefore, for British Columbia, as well as the commitments that have been made under the ERDA agreement, the Industrial and Regional Development Program is proving to be of great benefit. The IRDP is the core program of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Last November 9, the Minister announced an increased emphasis on the use of this program to support innovation, technology and trade. Indeed, this program which is available to budding new industries, middle-sized industries and larger industries as seed money or front-end assistance either by way of renewable contributions, interest-free loans or grants, is going to be a very important element in the future development of the province. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced earlier this afternoon that an additional $50 million of that IRDP program would be managed jointly by the two levels of Government and targeted to the small and medium-sized industrial initiatives rooted in innovation and the development of new industry and enterprise in the province.
Supply
I might point out that the IRDP program is proving to be increasingly beneficial to British Columbia in that the traditional statistics have shown a bias toward the large industrial regions of Canada. In the past nine months, there has been tremendous flow of additional funding to new economic activity in British Columbia. For the nine months prior to March 31, 1985, 73 IRDP projects were approved for British Columbia with expenditures totalling over $23 million. This compares to the only 34 project and just over $5 million spent during the corresponding period of the previous year under a Liberal administration. We have seen more than a doubling in the number of projects since September 4 and more than four times as much IRDP money going into British Columbia under a Progressive Conservative Government.
In addition, I want to emphasize that the over-all effect of the November 8 economic statement will be a stimulation of private sector research and development. It is our objective to see the fledgling industries and the established high-tech industries in the province grow and contribute to a more diversified and stable economy. That is an area in which the Industrial and Regional Assistance Program will be very, very helpful to the future of the province.
There are a number of other initiatives which will create new economic activity, not only in British Columbia but across Canada. The Government's decision to spend $1.5 billion to upgrade the North Warning System will have major economic implications for Canada and particularly for our technologyintensive industries. Over 7,000 person-years of work will be created in the communications industry alone. One initiative of the federal Government that is of special interest to me is the one that I announced two weeks ago in the form of an interim space plan for Canada. The announcement was greeted as good news by the vibrant space community which is evolving in British Columbia and throughout Canada.
Of course, the Western Accord on energy has been of tremendous benefit. I received a news release at 2.30 p.m. today which indicated that Mobil Oil Limited and Petro-Canada had announced a participation agreement to establish a major LNG facility to export western natural gas to the Far East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: That announcement would not have been possible were it not for the new measures and the elimination of the retrograde provisions of the National Energy Program. That is the kind of initiative which this Government has taken.
We have also announced increased funding to granting councils for the Medical Research Council and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. In addition to science and technology and economic development, Expo '86 promises to be a great shot in the arm for British Columbia and, indeed, for all of Canada. I would like to indicate that a recent study of Expo '86 indicates that Canada will enjoy an increase in the Gross National Product of $3.4 billion. We will

May 15, 1985
Supply
enjoy a $1.8 billion increase of total value-added benefits to the Canadian economy. As well, approximately $1.1 billion worth of new salaries will flow from Expo '86. It relates to 63,000 person-years of employment and an increase of $487 million in combined provincial and federal revenues. Seventy per cent of the benefits will accrue to the Province of British Columbia.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this motion is entirely out of order and inappropriate in relation to the degree of optimism which I and my 19 colleagues feel about the future of British Columbia, especially in light of the very positive and significant announcement which was made in the House this afternoon by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be spending all of his time in Ottawa and not any in Richmond, British Columbia. He does not understand that B.C. is mired in a recession. It has a 14.8 per cent rate of unemployment. In the rest of Canada, unemployment statistics have decreased, but the statistics in British Columbia have increased. The Premier of British Columbia, who has mismanaged the economy of that province even to the extent of putting the northeast coal megaproject in the wrong place, has not concentrated on development. That Premier is complaining that the federal Tories are not doing anything for him.
There is no pipeline on Vancouver Island. The forestry research grant was cut by $3.5 million in November. The fees to fishermen were cut by $6.3 million. The Minister abolished the National Research Council Energy Division and all the economic spinoffs that it would have provided to private enterprise. There were cut-backs in research programs into fishery and salmon enhancement.
Now that a Budget will be brought down, I would like to ask the Minister a question. In the City of Vancouver, the Social Credit Government, his friend, has undemocratically cut the whole Vancouver School Board. Is the Minister, who comes from the greater Vancouver area, prepared to use the influence which the federal Government has to get the B.C. Government to stop its undemocratic actions and its restraint programs which are killing the people of B.C.? If the Minister is so concerned about the deficit, then why did he give $3 billion to 12 large oil companies, ten of which are American-owned? Those oil companies will benefit to the tune of $3 billion. Will the Minister assure us that he will not look for that $3 billion in the Budget which will be brought down next week? Will he assure us that that money will not be taken out of the hides of the ordinary people of Canada, especially those in British Columbia.
The Minister has been spending too much time in Ottawa. The people in B.C. are suffering. There are food banks in my riding. Other parts of Canada may be recovering, but British Columbia is not recovering. I do not want to hear things about ERDA, because the Government has been dragging its feet for months on that. There are a lot of loose ends with respect to
that agreement. When will the Minister do something concrete to stop the restraint and punishment which has been forced on the ordinary citizens of British Columbia? When will the Minister stop talking about deficits and start talking about stimulating the Canadian economy, especially in British Columbia?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I tried to save the best news until last, but unfortunately I delivered it before the Hon. Member arrived in the House. Obviously, he has not been following the debate this afternoon. If he had, notwithstanding the points of debate which he raised, he would have realized that many of his concerns had been addressed. As he well knows, he has overstated the dilemma. Much as there is an unemployment problem in British Columbia, I believe that it is more important to approach the future with optimism, rather than with the paranoid, negative attitude which flows so frequently from opposition benches.
Surprisingly, he is the only opposition Member from British Columbia in the House. I travel to British Columbia virtually every weekend. I do not know where he spends his time because I do not often see him travelling to British Columbia. If he wants to criticize me for my attendance in my riding, I could do likewise. In fact, the people of my constituency are very pleased with the fact that there are several Members from British Columbia on the government side of the House. I think that is a reflection of the will which the people of Canada expressed on September 4, and I trust that it will continue to be expressed in the future.
I would like to make one final comment. The Hon. Member raised the question about who are our friends and enemies. He said that we should use some clout. The legacy which was left to this Government was a legacy of antagonism, frustration, aggravation and confrontation. That was created partly because of the dynasty of mismanagement which the country experienced under a socialist Prime Minister who was supported by his colleagues in the NDP. Our friends are to be found in the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, in the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, and in the Social Credit Party in British Columbia to the same extent that they are found in Progressive Conservative administrations across Canada. This Government believes that if it does not start out with a common commitment to solve Canada's problems and stop living in the past, as our friends opposite constantly wish to do, we will never overcome the problems which face Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister spent quite a bit of time talking about the glowing prospects of the economy. I have not seen an economic forecaster project a growth in the Gross National Product this year of over 2.3 per cent or 2.4 per cent. If we compare that with 1983, when the economic growth in this country was 3.5 per cent and with 1984, when it was 4.9 per cent, and then look back at the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) prophecies and commitments during the election campaign that he was going to create literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, we start to wonder whether this Govern-
May IS, 1985

ment is really committed to creating those jobs. When all of the independent companies and groups like the Conference Board and the Economic Council are forecasting economic growth in this country of less than 3 per cent-and we know that it takes about 3 per cent growth just to keep our labour force at its present level and our unemployment level from not increasing-why does the Government wait for eight or nine months to bring in a Budget? In its economic statement the Government just told us the things it was opposed to. It was opposed to research and development and renewable energy. We had one of the best developed programs for developing a new policy in renewable energy in all of the OAC and from among the western industrialized nations, yet it was cut out. We saw the government cut out things like the protection and monitoring of the environment. We saw it lay off dozens of NRC people, the cream of the crop, so they could go off to the United States. We saw the Government reduce drastically the Canadian Wildlife Service. We had a model institute for toxicology research, at the University of Guelph, associated with the University of Toronto, which would have given us a world class institution for research and development and which would have brought into play not only the training of scientists but the creation of new designs and models for toxicology research. It was a centre which would have involved the private sector, the universities and the co-operation of the Province of Ontario, but it was cut out from under us. So I think the Minister should act in the way he did yesterday at the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates where he admitted that in fact the Government was not going to keep its promise for research and development. He should come clean on this issue this afternoon instead of giving us all this gobbledy-gook.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the final remark made by the Hon. Member, I suppose he was not in the House 25 minutes ago when I gave my response to the concern he has expressed. This Government does not believe we solve problems by throwing money at them. This Government believes in sound management and the determination of priorities.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That's why you fired the scientists.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The fact that we inherited a deficit which amounts to one-third of our annual budget is a reflection of the poor judgment of our predecessors, and they have little cause to sit in this House and criticize a Government which, by its performance to date, has shown a clear sign of renewed confidence, and the statistical indicators are showing strong symptoms of economic recovery.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tell us about economic growth.


Thomas Edward Siddon: At the outset of the comments of the Hon. Member, he talked about projections. Unfortunately, we have economists in this country who project by looking back. They very seldom take into account the options which face a Government. That was a significant flaw in planning when the National Energy Program was introduced by the Government
Supply
of which that Hon. Member was a part. That was a significant flaw in judgment, which was reflected in the MacEachen Budget of 1982. That was a significant flaw in judgment, which led us to take the wrong response to the oil embargo flowing from the Middle East in 1975. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, is that people who have the power of political determination and choice between a number of optional policies have the power to influence the future of a nation in profound ways. I will assure the Hon. Member-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why have you welched on your promises?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I would ask the Hon. Member, if he lacks faith-to use another popular expression-to just watch us. Just watch us grow.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say something a little partisan to the Minister, and then I want to say something a little non-partisan. It always amazes me how the Minister can stand in this House-and he is an intelligent man, well educated-and say that the NDP's solution is to give money away. Then about ten minutes into his speech, he proudly announced how great the Government was today on ERDA, which he describes as grants, subsidies and interest-free loans to help the forest industry. The fact is that that is totally illogical. One cannot damn a process and then claim credit for it ten minutes later.
The Minister asks us to be positive. I think I am a positive person. I notice by the smiles of Hon. Members opposite that they agree. I live in a province, as do many of the Hon. Members who spoke today, which is out of step with the small recovery we are seeing in Canada. We have almost 15 per cent unemployment. In the beautiful Kootenay Mountains there is about 30 per cent unemployment. In Kamloops, the riding of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the unemployment rate is 20 per cent or 25 per cent and up. There are tremendous problems. I think the people of British Columbia are beginning to realize that the present Government of that province has mismanaged its economy. It has been chasing fool's gold when I believe it should be chasing green gold.
I heard the Minister's notions about high-tech. He talks about free economic zones and so on. But let us use a little common sense. The real greatness and strength of British Columbia is in its resources and its people. Its resources are tremendous. We have terrific forest resources. I know the Minister and I do not differ on that. We can look at some of the European countries which have updated their technology, as we have not, with a few exceptions such as the pulp mills and the caribou. By and large, our forest industry is old and needs to be revamped. We are worried about the American trade barriers which could totally destroy our province. I think both the Minister and I agree that there is lots to be done in the forestry area. The Minister has my support in helping with the forestry agreements. But we believe that the federal Government has got off to a very poor start. We think it has dragged its heels in providing things for British Columbia. There is, however, some promise, and we will continue to press

May 15, 1985
Supply
the Government. There is the use of Petro-Canada, the government oil company, which got going in the Parliament of 1972 to 1974, of which the Minister spoke so badly.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What is the matter with mixed enterprise?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is nothing the matter with mixed enterprise. I am not against that. I do not believe the Minister is. We should be using Petro-Canada, using private industry, to get things going for British Columbia. As a Member from British Columbia, I say to the Minister that we are going to keep after his Government to look after the interests of British Columbia, because the province is out of step.
We have great tourist potential. I know the Minister believes in education, as I do, and we cannot have this dispute
between the provincial Government and the Vancouver School Board or the Cowichan School Board. Only the kids suffer. British Columbia somehow has to get hold of itself and get some economic leadership in order to develop the province in the way it can be developed. Let us go after what I call the "green gold", that is, the forest industry and our fisheries. We are going to keep after the Minister and that is why we proposed this motion today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, May 16, 198S