1985-05-03

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is alive and well and proving in Ontario that the path of moderation is the new direction Canadians want from government. The Liberal victory in Ontario-and it is a victory as more people voted Liberal than Tory-is a victory of the common person over the big machine. It is a victory of every-day people over a regime that thrives on patronage and polls. The people of Ontario refuse to turn back the clock to allow right-wing Conservatism to undo the progress of people politics and social responsibility.
The people of Ontario made it clear that they want a Government that will look after their needs and interests rather than be a bit player in orchestrated love-ins manipulated by the boss of all Tory bosses, in Ottawa. Tory platitudes will not be accepted as a disguise for boardroom policies or no policies at all. Only one Party offers the dynamic leadership and meaningful programs which can seriously address unemployment and economic development in a manner that is fair and equitable to all. That Party, of course, is the Liberal Party of Ontario.
The days of Tory Government composed of yes men with vested interests are over in Ontario. At the same time, the sands of time are beginning to run out on the Tory Government in Ottawa.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's co-operative housing movement is being undermined by the combined actions of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), who is responsible for housing, and of some private-profit builders. Last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who was then Leader of the Official Opposition, blasted the Liberal Government for cutting co-op housing allocations by 40 per cent. At that time he said:
The Progressive Conservative Party finds it inexcusable that the Liberal Government should cut back funds for the co-operative housing program .. . Co-operative housing will continue to have a high priority in Progressive Conservative policy for housing.
What a phoney. The Minister of Labour has already cut co-op housing funding. In Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia, CMHC is cancelling co-op projects. These projects are mostly sound ones begun by well established co-op groups with a good record of producing housing within CMHC budgets. Yet, after encouraging these groups to spend their volunteer time and in some cases enter into contracts to buy land or to build, CMHC has suddenly cancelled approval for the projects.
After CMHC approval is cancelled, housing allocations seem to be handed over to fly-by-night, so-called non-profit groups which have cosy relationships with private-profit builders. Shame on the Prime Minister for flagrantly breaking his election promise and for helping to destroy the co-op housing movement in Canada.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the fact that tomorrow will mark a very important anniversary in Canada's history. On May 4, 1910, fully 75 years ago, this House, speaking for the people of Canada, gave assent to the Naval Service Act which brought the Naval Service of Canada into existence. Only four years later this fledgling service was called upon to defend Canada in ships that, although past their prime, were manned with great skill and courage.
In World War II Canada's navy reached its peak, with over 400 ships and 100,000 men and women in its ranks. It was the world's third largest navy and was unsurpassed in bravery and courage. During the five and a half long years of that struggle which is known as the Battle of Atlantic, Canada's navy helped keep open the vital North Atlantic sea lanes, frequently in terrible weather, against a determined enemy. To this battle Canada gave 1,800 gallant sailors and 24 proud ships.
Then came Korea, and once again Canadian sailors served their country with great courage. In the ensuing years our navy continues to play an important role in the North Atlantic alliance.

May 3, 1985
As the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and as a former member of this illustrious service, I call on the House to recognize officially the 75th anniversary of the Naval Service of Canada, and to express unanimously its gratitude to the men and women of our navy, both past and present, for their contribution to our country.


CURRENCY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in order to divert the attention of the House from some rather disappointing, if temporary, setbacks in the Province of Ontario, I have a burning question that I wish to bring to its attention. The question, Sir, is why are nickels bigger than dimes? When nickels were made of nickel and dimes were made of silver, this made sense. But today both coins are made from baser metals.
The subcommittee looking into the possible issuance of a dollar coin, a move which I strongly favour, has demonstrated its prowess in coinage matters. Perhaps after finishing its appointed task its talents could be applied to examining other coinage issues such as the one just mentioned. Another might be the future of the copper penny. Do we really need pennies? If so, should they continue to be made of expensive copper, an increase in price of which might lead to the hoarding and melting down of these coins?
The opportunity exists for a thorough revision of our coinage and the development of a logical and distinctively Canadian coinage system.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, for many months I have been asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to stop their unjust treatment of needy Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 who are being denied the spouse's allowance just because they are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) informed the House last week that more than 1,000 people earning $100,000 or more do not pay a cent of income tax in Canada, which means an increase of 33 per cent over 1982. In addition, 6,000 people with an income of between $50,000 and $99,000 do not pay a cent of income tax in
Canada, which is 4,000 more than in 1982. And 6,700 people earning between $40,000 and $49,000 do not pay a cent of tax in Canada either, and this is 5,201 more than in 1982.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all the Members of the House to ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of social injustice in Canada to impose a minimum tax on people in the wealthiest groups, so that we can then extend the spouse's allowance to all elderly Canadians who are single and in need. The anti-social measures the Federal Conservatives want to take are similar to the ones that helped the Liberals win the popular vote in Ontario yesterday.



Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, roughly 28,000 Quebec senior citizens had their old age security cheques reduced to the minimum this month and did not get any income supplement because they did not return the required application form before March 31.
Although they will get their supplement retroactively once the application has been received, many of these elderly people will have a hard time finding enough money to buy food or pay rent. The Government must see to it that administrative delays resulting from applications being received after the deadlines are reduced to a minimum. Instead of withholding the supplement in future, the Government would be better advised to send a cheque reduction notice to people who fail to return the application form one month before the deadline. The elderly would then be spared the unpleasant surprise of a sudden income drop.
In the case of a person living alone, Mr. Speaker, the supplement can amount to $328 a month, or half the monthly income of the needy. Obviously, such a loss of income takes its toll on the elderly. We ought to realize that such administrative procedures are not always readily understood by older people. Mr. Speaker, it is better to tailor bureaucratic requisites to the special needs of older Canadians than to make them put up with Government red tape.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my wife and I have three beautiful children, and I said during the election campaign that if I do nothing more during my term as a public person than to keep our world free of a nuclear
May 3, 1985

holocaust so that our children can fulfil their lives, then I will have succeeded.
I have seen the Sowetos of South Africa, the poverty of Bombay, the dying of Ethiopia. I have seen the discipline of Japan, the down underness of New Zealand, the confidence of the U.S.A., and I can assure you, this House, and this country, that people are the same all over the world. Food and water, shelter and warmth, education and medical care, security and love, whether a housewife in the Soviet Union or a nursing mother in Same, Tanzania; whether black, yellow, white or mixed origins, the needs of these people are fundamentally exactly the same as ours.
1 have lived their needs and 1 have been a daily part of their personal priorities. As a civilized, educated, and learned people, we can only come to one conclusion, one conclusion that easterners, westerners, northerners, and southerners, developed and developing, must all share; one conclusion that will put us on a track to sanity, peace, and world security; one conclusion that should, must, and will be unanimous, the conclusion that continued nuclear armament is total madness.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, politicians love statues and pigeons love statues, but it appears that the former Government had little love for certain statues. Last week it was revealed in the press that the Right Hon. Lester Pearson had commissioned four statues as part of Canada's centennial celebration in 1967. Two Liberal Prime Ministers were to be honoured, Mackenzie King and St. Laurent, and two Conservative Prime Ministers, Bennett and Meighen. Oddly enough, only the Liberal statues made it to Parliament Hill; the others were either rejected in model form or stored away upon completion.
The old saying goes that "nobody ever raised a statue to a critic", so I do not want to appear too critical today. Nor would I want to see Parliament Hill overrun with too many monuments. However, I think it is important to support the proposal of my colleague from Scarborough Centre that a memorial be erected in honour of one of the country's greatest Prime Ministers, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.
S)
Perhaps it might also be timely to raise a memorial to that other, more recent Prime Minister, the one who goes for long walks in the snow. I strongly suggest that such a statue, with all the fingers in the right place, be erected in Salmon Arm, British Columbia.
________________________________________4375
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of yesterday's election in Ontario 1 can understand why the Deputy Prime Minister is not radiating his usual good humour and benevolence. In fact there is a rumour around to the effect that he lost a substantial bet to his very Liberal brother, Leslie.
To turn to the matters before us today, the Prime Minister's office has been promoting the absurd fiction that the Prime Minister has more credibility in the international arena than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that that is much like comparing a college freshman to a learned and wise professor or, in a hockey analogy, a Johnston to a Gretsky.
The Prime Minister's actions during his current trip have left Canadians concerned and dumbfounded. Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House what possible reason Canada's Prime Minister could have for rudely rejecting an invitation to meet with Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan to discuss economic issues of mutual concern? What on earth are these economic summits for? Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the inexplicable to Canadians?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a bundle to roll into one question. It is quite unfair of the Hon. Member to twist, warp, and distort as he has done. He mentions the efforts of Mr. Trudeau. I just happen to have The Toronto Star article of yesterday here in which our Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
Like all of us, he (Trudeau) had his successes and his failures. That's the lot of a politician. He played his role as he saw it on the international scene and I have in the past indicated my admiration for the objectives he sought.
1 think it is unkind and untrue for the Hon. Member to make that kind of snide reference.
With respect to his use of the terminology "rejected" in relation to a visit with Mr. Nakasone, that also is not true. The report in The Globe and Mail today, which the Hon. Member is repeating, is pure speculation with respect to the Prime Minister's itinerary which was designed well in advance of his visit. The explanation that he has given for having to defer that visit with Mr. Nakasone is quite understandable and should be accepted by Members of the House.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have grown used to the public explanations in this Chamber. I am sure that privately the Deputy Prime Minister must feel concerned and somewhat dumbfounded, as we all do.

May 3, 1985
Oral Questions


ROLE OF CANADIAN MINISTERS
Donald James Johnston: This seems to be a trip of photos as usual, rather than business as usual, for the Prime Minister. Let us hope that the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are carrying on serious discussions on behalf of the interests of Canadians. How will we know? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the office of the Prime Minister has in fact muzzled these two Ministers by refusing to permit them to take their press spokesmen, their press assistants, to Bonn?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at times when I was sitting over there and the Hon. Member, as a former Minister, was sitting over here, I reflected on his contributions during Question Period and in debate, and thought that there was an honourable guy who should really be in the Tory Party, but I am now beginning to have doubts about that when he makes that sort of unkind and untrue representation.
The Prime Minister is in Europe admirably discharging his responsibilities at the Bonn Economic Summit, as are the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance. Rather than the critical attitude being adopted by the Hon. Member, I think he should be acting in the best interests of Canada and urging on the Prime Minister and his two Ministers in their very laudable task.


OVERFISHING BY WEST GERMAN FLEET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I can reciprocate and say that I have great respect for the Hon. Member, and always had.


Mr. Axworthy:: But we do not want him over here; don't go too far.


Donald James Johnston: That is why I suggest that deep in his heart he really does not believe what he is saying to us today but feels constrained by this place to do so.
Let me point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Prime Minister himself is steering clear, or his handlers are steering him clear, of all controversial issues during this trip.
Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whom I see in his place today, characterized the problem of overfishing off the East Coast of Canada by West German vessels as, and I quote, "a shocking and serious situation". I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister agrees, but why doesn't the Prime Minister of Canada seize this unique opportunity to raise this issue with Chancellor Kohl at the Economic Summit? Or is this issue, something that affects the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Canadians, too controversial to raise in the forum of an economic summit?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again speculation. How in
the world does the Hon. Member know what the Prime Minister is raising with Chancellor Kohl?


Some Hon. Members:: Tell us.


Erik Nielsen: How does he know that it is not being raised by the Prime Minister? How does the Hon. Member expect me to tell him, instant by instant, what is being discussed over there?
I am certain that he will be discussing, as will the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, all those matters which are important and in the Canadian interest. They will take every opportunity in Bonn to affect those bilateral discussions. It behooves the Hon. Member ill, and it is certainly not in the country's interest, for him to be making the suggestions which he is making. Instead of doing that he should be applauding the efforts which are being made by the Prime Minister and others in that group.
Anyone who knows the Prime Minister knows very well that he is not handled like one of his predecessors in office was handled and muzzled in 1980.


INTERESTS OF NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on the line of questioning begun by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, by saying to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Prime Minister is now in the very country which is raping the resource most important to Newfoundland. It is simply not good enough to say that they do not know what the Prime Minister is doing in West Germany. We want more than smiles. Newfoundlanders want to know that the Prime Minister is over there fighting for them. I want an assurance that while the Prime Minister is in West Germany he will make sure that he raises this issue, fights on behalf of us, and stops the draining of the lifeblood of our economy.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that he can remove all doubts instantly with respect to the ability and the determination of the Prime Minister of Canada to fight for Canada's interest wherever he goes in the world, and not just as the Bonn Economic Summit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us and the people of Newfoundland today that the Prime Minister of Canada, of all Canada, including the fishermen on the East Coast, while in West Germany will raise this matter, will fight for our interests and see to it that this draining of fishing resources on the East Coast, which are the only thing we have left, is going to stop?
May 3, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can be assured that the Prime Minister will raise all significant and important issues of interest to Canada, including the fishery. The Hon. Member should be the last to be criticizing anything that our Prime Minister is doing on that score, in the wake of reaching an agreement, which he and his colleagues failed to reach over so many years, on the Atlantic Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON NICARAGUA-EFFECT ON CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister will know that earlier this week when the Prime Minister was informed of the American embargo on Nicaragua, he said that Canada would not participate in that embargo. That was certainly the right position to take. The Minister is now aware that as a result of United States subsidiaries in Canada being influenced by that decision, Canadian companies and Canadians will be influenced. Is the Minister simply going to stand by and allow Ronald Reagan to dictate to Canadians which countries we can trade with, and the commodities we can trade with those countries? Is he simply going to stand by and allow Ronald Reagan to dictate our export policy?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, this type of questioning came up yesterday. We have now learned that the regulations that the Hon. Member and one of his colleagues referred to yesterday are not in place. It is simply coming from a story out of Washington that there might be such a regulation. As I indicated yesterday, surely getting into this hypothetical thing is totally unnecessary at the present time.


FORTHCOMING UNITED STATES REGULATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about this. The officials in the Treasury Department have indicated that the regulations will be completed by Tuesday. They will be in force by Tuesday and they will be affecting Canadian firms. The Minister says he plans to do absolutely nothing about it, that the firms operating in Canada will be prohibited from carrying on trade with that country and that his Government will stand passively by. Is that the case?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in response to the Hon. Member, he is missing the entire point. The regulations that he is referring to have simply been referred to by an official in Washington, if you can believe the news accounts. Our posi-
Oral Questions
tion is that we will endeavour to find out what exactly is the nature of those regulations and see if they have any direct or indirect bearing on Canadian companies, and we will act accordingly.


CANADIAN POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister is saying is that at the moment his officials are doing nothing. The Government is doing nothing to attempt to assist Nicaragua at this very difficult hour. Is the Minister prepared to say that, because of his Government's inaction, what it really means is that since the Americans have placed an embargo on Nicaragua the Canadian Government will be an accomplice of Ronald Reagan, forcing Nicaragua into the Soviet Bloc? Is that what he is saying?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the statements my hon. colleague just made in the House, I can reiterate my assurance that the Reagan order would not apply. Our Ministers, who are in Bonn at the present time, have held consultations, and we have the assurance that branches of American companies will not be affected by the embargo.


EXTERNAL AID
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Reports we are receiving show that the tragic situation in Ethiopia is deteriorating and is even worse than most people believe possible. The Ethiopian Government has forcibly closed the major feeding camp in that country, forcing some 60,000 people into a march which many will not survive.
[DOT] (U30)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday officials of the External Affairs Department informed Members of this House that they have no information whatever other than what they had received through the media, about what was taking place in Ethopia, and therefore the Government had taken no action. On behalf of the Government will the Minister immediately contact the Ethiopian Government and express on behalf of the people of this country the very deep and great concern we have about the forced closure of that camp and the tragedy that is being inflicted on those people who are being forced into that march?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, or perhaps the day before, I announced in the House that the United Nations Co-ordinator

May 3, 1985
Oral Questions
was visiting Ethiopia, and that we were in touch with our ambassador who was also monitoring the situation. It is correct that the camp had to be evacuated because of the rainfall, which was making it difficult for the people to stay there.
I have been informed that the refugees received several pounds of food as well as seeds and farm implements before leaving, that the infrastructure is still intact, and that our ambassador is supposed to meet the senior UN official at the end of his visit in order to discuss the situation, and I can give the House the assurance that we shall be monitoring the situation very closely because we too have a sense of responsibility.
[English)


REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF SITUATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister, that is simply not good enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I find it incredible that the President of the Treasury Board would be laughing about a matter as serious as this. If he finds humour in the Ethiopian situation, then there is something very sick and wrong with him.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of External Relations. Would she ask our officials in Ethiopia to undertake a personal visit to the area and not rely upon second or third hand reports, and from that direct visit ascertain what direct action this country might take to alleviate suffering which other international observers and observers from non-government organizations have said will result in the extinction and death of thousands of people if that march continues?
[ Translation)


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very positive element in the present situation and that is the fact that after waiting for rain for months, it is now raining in Ethiopia. We intend to pursue our commitment to the famine victims in Ethiopia, and we shall continue to send help. Our non-governmental organizations will be monitoring the situation and taking care of distributing the aid we shall be sending, and our ambassador, as I said before, is very carefully monitoring the present situation on our behalf.


PROSTITUTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Badgley Commission last August submittred a comprehensive report which very clearly documented the shocking incidence of sexual abuse of
young people, which often leads them into a life of juvenile prostitution.
Why did the Government refuse to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Justice Committee, the Badgley Commission, and the Fraser Commission, all of which urge the Government to undertake social and economic measures to deal with juvenile prostitution? In particular, why did he not toughen sanctions against customers of child prostitutes, instead of doing as the Minister did yesterday in his Bill, driving them further into a life of crime, violence, and dependence on pimps?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has not rejected any recommendations of the Badgley report nor of the Fraser report as yet. The Government is dealing interdepartmentally with these many and complicated recommendations and with the provinces which are involved in almost all phases of these serious social problems. I am expecting that we will have a range of legislative suggestions in this area that will be put before the House next fall. We are acting.
We acted yesterday to carry out one of the main recommendations of the Fraser committee report. It said that with respect to street prostitution citizens are entitled both to consideration by the law, and more than that, to forms of legal protection which can be effectively enforced. We have put before the House legislation dealing with street solicitation which can be effectively enforced so that the public streets of Canada can be recaptured for the use of ordinary citizens and controlled by the police as they should be.


BADGLEY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, obviously on this question, as on so many others, the Minister is basically trying to work both sides of the street.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: There is nothing there at all on juvenile prostitution.
In view of the fact that the Government has been studying the Badgley Commission recommendations for over eight months without taking action on a single recommendation, how much longer will we have to wait before the Government does respond to the recommendations of the Badgley Commission? Will the Minister assure this House and, through this House, Canadians, that he will respond on behalf of the Government to those recommendations at least before the House rises for the summer recess?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is soliciting an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 3, 1985


John Carnell Crosbie: I can assure him, yes, I am working both sides of the street. I am working the whole street. We are going to reclaim the public streets of Canada, in Toronto, in Calgary, in Vancouver, in Halifax, in St. John's they are already all right-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -in Burnaby-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -without discrimination against both men or women, or gender discrimination. There will be no discrimination. We are going to stop street soliciting both on behalf of those who sell sex and those who wish to purchase sex. That is the objective of our legislation, and that is what it will do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
We know how important the grain transportation policy is to Quebec farmers and to producers in Western Canada. This morning the papers reported that the Government was going to wait at least a year before implementing the recommendations of the Hall Report. Could the Minister inform the House whether this is indeed the Government's policy?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said in the House earlier, the report of the Hall inquiry into the method of payment is being considered and will be debated hopefully in a comprehensive fashion. Also under the provisions of the Act, it is mandated to conduct a review during the crop year 1985-86. Of course the subject matter of the Hall inquiry and its recommendations will be included in the course of that review.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister's answer and the importance these decisions will have for producers in Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, does this mean that the Hall recommendations will not affect Canadian producers, either in Eastern or Western Canada, before the 1987-88 season?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations that have been advanced have been advanced under a set of criteria with the one important criterion being the method of payment that will be the most conducive to agricultural development in Canada and, second, a method of payment that will not be unfair or disproportionate to sectors of western agriculture relative to other regions of the country.
The recommendations that have been brought forth, I think, are very interesting ones. They should be considered in a very thoughtful and comprehensive fashion.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the grave misgivings that members of the Public Service, the unions, and also superannuated members of the Public Service are expressing over the announcement that the Government is proposing to deindex public service pensions. The agreement with the alliance states that pension adjustments for inflation, and I quote: "will be determined by the President of the Treasury Board on the basis of the recommendations of the management board", that is the union-employer management board that is being proposed.
Is the Government proposing that the Minister will be able to veto or to change recommendations of that management board on inflation adjustment? If so, why should the public service unions give up the statutory indexing they now have, for a grace and favour system which gives the power to the Minister?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, let me say that first it is an agreement in principle. It is a basis for negotiating the final agreement that we can reach with both parties on the issues of pensions.
The reference to the power of the Minister is really with regard to the financial soundness of the plan. The management board will be set up, and as far as the management board making recommendations that are consistent with the financial soundness of the plan is concerned, there is no problem. It is not a veto power of any kind.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the grave concern about this and the fact that there may be some other verbal understandings not contained within the agreement, is the Minister prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, or another

May 3, 1985
Oral Questions
committee of the House, in order to explain and be questioned about the agreement with the public service unions? Would he use his good offices to make sure that such a meeting can take place at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Robert de Cot ret (President of the Treasury Board):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have to negotiate this deal and it is very complex. We need actuarial reports and a number of technical details.
These are questions of principle and negotiating items that we have set forth to help both sides understand where we are going. It is not explaining in detail, as the Hon. Member asks, what we are going to do. This is a document that states that both parties will pursue discussions along these lines.
As soon as we reach any kind of specific agreement I will be more than happy to talk to any parliamentary committee and to the House in general, if need be, on the how, why, and when of the whole agreement.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS NEGOTIATION OF ERDA AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The pending ERDA agreement with the Province of British Columbia is of great importance to the people of my home province. Will the Minister advise the House of the status of this proposed agreement?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member will be pleased to learn that discussions are continuing. We have had discussions with the Minister of Industry and Small Business in British Columbia, Mr. McClelland, and he has indicated that he feels a basic agreement on the over-all ERDA can be worked out with respect to the subsidiary funding agreement.
I am very pleased to note that he stated in a major speech on April 29 that there is a new and important spirit of co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces which bodes well for us all. I agree.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns junkets on board the sacred instruments of travel of the Government.
In the face of massive cut-backs in the arts, the CBC, and other valuable areas of government activities, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what could have possibly possessed his colleague, the Minister of Communications, to fill a government jet with family and personal staff members to fly off to Algeria, Greece, and other exotic places, at a cost of $57,000 to the Canadian taxpayers, at a time when he and his colleagues are preaching restraint and telling us how to tighten our belts? How does he intend to stop this kind of activity in the future?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it the specific journey that the Hon. Member talks about was one which was made in the vital interests of Canada's international trade in one of the leading areas of our technology, namely, telecommunications. The Minister visited several countries in the Middle East on missions to improve markets and establish markets for the sale of Canadian manufactured products and goods.
When I saw the article to which the Hon. Member refers, I, who have that responsibility now, looked very carefully at that trip. I see every justification for the use of government aircraft in that instance. It has nothing but benefit. Certainly it is a far greater advantage to Canada than the example that was portrayed by his Party when it was the Government a couple of years ago, when three government aircraft, with three separate Cabinet Ministers, arrived at roughly the same time in the City of Winnipeg, unbeknownst to each other. All of them could have taken commercial aircraft.


INQUIRY WHETHER TRAVEL EXPENSES WILL BE MADE PUBLIC
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we know that when he was a Member of the Quebec Cabinet, the Minister of Communications had a reputation for nationalistic flights of fancy. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House today whether he intends to allow Government travel documents to be made public as the previous Government did, so that Canadians can check up on unnecessary trips and spending by this government?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, not only are we doing it in public, if the Hon. Member were up to scratch he would know that he or any other Member can walk into National Defence Headquarters where these records are kept, on any day of the week within normal office hours, and have that information fully accessible to him on a daily basis. Certainly the journalists have discovered the accessibility.
It is not like the previous administration which kept them under wraps for three months, and would have liked to have kept them under wraps forever. This Government is open and fully accountable to the people, and any time that anyone wishes to see manifests or whatever other information with respect to the use of administrative flights, they can do so on a daily basis.
May 3, 1985


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said that the sale of White Farm's U.S. assets involves "no direct connection whatsoever with the Canadian company". Yesterday news reports revealed that amongst those items that are being sold in the United States is the tooling for parts used in Brantford, and that these will have to be bought, or replaced, to keep the Canadian company in production. Will the Minister admit that he misled the House? Will he also admit that the sale that I talked about on Tuesday is a serious threat to the future jobs of those people in Brantford?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what news account the Hon. Member is referring. We are in touch with the Royal Bank and the receiver in this case, as well as the person who has been attempting to put together a financing package possibly to take over the White Farm Equipment concern. We have been assured that the activity in the United States has no effect as far as the ongoing operation or potential operation of White Farm in Canada is concerned. There was certainly no misleading of the House when I answered the Hon. Member's question earlier in the week.


Steven W. Langdon: In fact it was The Globe and Mail of yesterday, Christopher Waddell, who pointed out that this is a key problem for the survival of this company.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO HELP COMPANY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister again if he is prepared finally-having talked about socialist extraterritoriality, and trying to bring red herrings into this question-to act and get some urgency behind the survival of this company which is important not just for its own employees but for farm dealers across the country, and for the tool manufacturers, 13 of whom sent a telegram to him this week? Will he stop fiddling around and finally act?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has shed a lot of light on the source of his information when he refers to The Globe and Mail, and Mr. Waddell in particular.
We are acting with respect to his concern about White Farm, and we are in daily contact with various people who expressed an interest in reactivating the concern, including Mr. Sinclair, with whom we met and also discussed this matter on more than one occasion.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. After months of waiting the Solicitor General revealed this week that he has received only an interim report from the RCMP on the Hatfield affair.
I would like to ask him, after all these months, what possible additional work needs to be done on the report. I would also like to ask for his assurance that the interim report will not be watered down or sanitized to delete its findings from the final version which will be made public.
SO)


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague, as he perhaps will appreciate, that this internal review was one which took a considerable amount of time, and it was interrupted from time to time by the Commissioner's other duties. It was prepared in segments. I want to assure him that, just as there were no attempts to influence or water down the investigation which prompted the internal review, neither will there be any attempt to do anything like that with the comprehensive report which the Commissioner of the RCMP has just about completed.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WAS INTERVIEWED
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, regarding the comprehensive report I would like to ask the Minister whether he was interviewed, or whether the RCMP asked to interview him as they did my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Member surely ought to know, if he would reflect upon the subject, that I speak with the Commissioner of the RCMP on many occasions, as he did when he was Minister. I can assure him, insofar as the request which was made to interview the Hon. Member for York South-Weston was concerned, that instead of co-operating with the force, as I am sure the former Minister would have done, he sought to make a media event out of it. Because of the circumstances, he never made a contribution to the review.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The question concerns the poverty of artists and the number of measures which have been proposed to relieve artists in dire straits which were made by the Subcommittee on the Taxation of Visual and Performing Artists and Writers. So far, only the easy recommendations have been implemented.

May 3, 1985
Oral Questions
Could the Minister tell us if the Government is prepared, or when it will be prepared, to introduce measures on the more difficult matters and, in particular, to permit the deduction of losses from professional artistic activities and writing, and the function of self-employment for all performing artists for the purposes of expense deductions? Those are two of the key recommendations which concern practical artists in Canada right now.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not expect me to comment on matters which relate to the Budget at this time. The Minister of Communications, the Minister of Finance, myself, and this Government are very committed to Canadian culture. We are aware of the issues which have been raised. I am sure she will get her answer in due course.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE INQUIRY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is not much of an answer. We would be happy to see action before the Budget. It does not have to wait for the Budget.
I would like to deal with another very specific measure. With the arts cut-backs, more and more artists are experiencing long periods of unemployment, yet they do not collect unemployment insurance because of their tax status. Recommendations were made as far back as 10 years ago, which have been studied by her Department, to incorporate artists into the unemployment insurance system. Can we expect action on that point in the near future as the situation for artists continues to get worse, and the periods of unemployment continue to affect more of them for longer periods?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are considering a number of policies with regard to the cultural community. I am very happy to report, in light of the fact that we are seeing some economic recovery, that we expect the artistic community to share in that as well. Certainly in my riding we are very aware of the issues which she has raised, and we are very sensitive to them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. What is the Government doing to ensure that Canadians, in particular those contractors and workers living in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, will be able to get maximum benefit from the proposed North Warning System?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, immediatley after the announcement of the modernization
program I caused the project manager from the Department to pay a visit to both the Governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in order to acquaint them fully with the progress thus far and, as far as possible, to anticipate future needs. The problems he raises will be addressed to ensure the largest possible participation of Northerners in all of the projects, wherever they may be undertaken in Canada.


HOUSING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of several Ministers, and especially the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Minister or to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, a number of mayors of Quebec municipalities have written to the Minister responsible for CMHC to complain about the cutbacks made in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. They have also asked for additional funding. I would like to know whether the Minister could inform the House if he is willing to grant additional funding to the Regional Municipality of Arthabaska, the Town of Becan-cour, the Regional Municipality of Bellechasse, and the cities of Rouyn-Noranda, Sherbrooke and Rimouski?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question would require the kind of detail which I am sure no reasonable Hon. Member would expect me to have at my fingertips. However, to avoid the necessity of the Member putting it on the Order Paper-where, perhaps, it should probably be-I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister responsible and see to it that he communicates with the Hon. Member.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has promised to speak to the Minister responsible for CMHC-now that the elections in Ontario are over, we can say that thanks to the Minister responsible for CMHC, who cut $17 million from Quebec's budget and only $2 million from Ontario's, that the Ontario election cost Quebecers $17 million-is the Minister going to ask the Minister responsible for CMHC to rectify a decision that was unfair to Quebecers and grant additional funding so that the RRAP program will get at least $10 million more?
May 3, 1985


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept those premises as outlined by the Hon. Member. What he should be doing is complimenting this Government and the Minister of DRIE, who is sitting in his place, for reaching an agreement which eluded the Party which formed the previous Government-the Party of which he has been a member for so many years-for reaching a SI billion agreement under ERDA with the Province of Quebec. It eluded those fellows over there, Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I am informed by one of my constituents in Vancouver that CP Air has been advertising in Seattle, Washington, by radio, for airline personnel, saying that there is no problem with a 90-day work permit. Has the Government agreed to issue immigration permits to permit strike breaking?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the incident to which the Hon. Member has referred. Certainly I will check it out. I do know that labour problems have developed between the airline, the IAM, and other unions. I will check it out and get back to the Hon. Member.


POSSIBILITY OF WORK STOPPAGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the labour problems, it will be a rough summer for airline travellers if another airline is on strike or locked out. What steps has the Government taken to try to resolve the situation at CP Air before either a strike or a lock-out happens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, is actively involved and is monitoring the situation very closely. He has been in touch with both parties and I am sure that he will be in a better position to report on the developments when he returns to the House next week.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It relates to her announcement this week that she will introduce legislation
Business of the House
to compensate Pioneer Trust depositors who are not fully protected by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Since January a private sector committee, which was appointed by the Minister, has been studying CDIC. Lest we risk being further overtaken by events, would the Minister tell the House what her timetable is, when she expects to have the committee's report, and when it will be tabled in the House?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have the draft report in my hands now. I will be reviewing it and tabling it as soon as possible in the House.


CEILING FOR INSURABLE DEPOSITS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Consumers Association of Canada has recommended raising the ceiling for insurable deposits to $100,000 from the present $60,000 and, further, that institutions covered by CDIC be required to inform customers whether their deposits are covered. In fact the customers would be required to sign a form which says that they have received that advice. Does the Government intend to introduce those particular proposals or recommendations?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already instructed the CDIC that it is to ensure that customers are adequately informed of the benefits and limits of deposit insurance. As far as raising the level of insurance is concerned, I do not want to prejudge what will come out of the report. We will have a full discussion of all the issues relating to deposit insurance when the report is tabled.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 2, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what business he proposes for the coming week. When the Parliamentary Secretary was asked that question yesterday by the Deputy House Leader for the Opposition, he was told that the information would be provided today. I trust it will be.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. That was indicated yesterday by my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).

May 3, 1985
Introduction of Bills
The Hon. Member will know that we are currently involved in discussions with Opposition Parties respecting the facilitating of the passage of several of the items of legislation which are on the Order Paper. At the moment, I would therefore like to indicate the business of the House for Monday and Tuesday of next week.
The first item of business on Monday will be a Bill entitled Pioneer Trust Payment Continuation Act, a Bill which will be introduced later today by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). As I indicated to the Hon. House Leaders in our discussion of last Wednesday, I am hoping we can have this important initiative on the part of the Government passed through all stages on Monday. The item is important to the people of Saskatchewan and I know that Hon. Members will be interested in giving serious consideration to moving that Bill through.
The second item of business that I would propose to call would be Bill C-30, the Bretton Woods Bill, which is at report stage. Hopefully we can make progress with that Bill and have the matter disposed of so that it can be referred to the Senate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the Senate exist?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Senate as it now exists. If Bill C-30 is passed, the next item of business will be Bill C-33, the meat inspection Bill. I understand there is a disposition to deal with that matter rather quickly. I do not think there is any particular dispute regarding that legislation.
Finally, if Bill C-33 is passed, the House will move on to a debate at second reading stage on Bill C-45, the parliamentary staff relations Bill.
The business for Tuesday will be the same as the business I have just outlined for Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, an Act to provide for the continuance of payments under certain guaranteed income averaging certificates issued by the Pioneer Trust Company.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 109 and 315 will be answered today.


Mr. Angus: Were any salaries, expenses or remunerations paid to or negotiated with the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, the Hon. Eugene Whelan and Mr. Maurice Dupras between July 9, 1984 and the date their appointments were rescinded, or between that date and November 30, 1984 and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) what was the purpose and the date of each payment (c) were any of these payments taxable?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Agriculture as follows:
The Hon. Eugene Whelan, the Hon. Bryce Mackasey and Mr. Maurice Dupras received salaries from the Department of External Affairs from July 9, 1984, the date on which they were appointed, to October 11, 1984, the date their appointments were terminated: Messrs. Whelan and Mackasey were paid at the GIC-08 level ($75,560 to $88,930 per year) and Mr. Dupras was paid at the GIC-06 level ($63,230 to $74,410 per year). Income tax deductions on salary payments were made at the appropriate rate.
The only other payments to them by the Department of External Affairs were those related directly to their postings and specified in the Foreign Service Directives: Mr. Whelan received reimbursement for expenses incurred in removal of personal effects and their storage pending shipment to Rome and Mr. Dupras received a posting loan that is now being recovered.
In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: Under the terms of a service contract, the Hon. Eugene Whelan was paid a taxable fee of $11,810 to serve as Canadian Representative to the World Food Council for the period October 11, 1984 to November 30, 1984.


Mrs. Killens: Did the Government implement the Canada-Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence economic development plan and, if so, what was the total amount invested in all areas of the plan since the work began?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since the launching of the plan in May, 1983, until December 31, 1984, the total amounts spent or committed in all areas are as follows:
May 3, 1985

Agriculture	$ 3,474,000
Forestry	$ 3,166.000
Transport	$ 9.386.000
Fisheries	$60,133,000
Industry	$ 8,198.000
Tourism	$ 1,592,000
Mining	$ 1.310.000
Reserve and	$ 195,000
Administration


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada, especially with regard to regional industrial development, fisheries and transportation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in debating this motion which speaks of the neglect and indifference of this Government toward Atlantic Canada, its transportation problems, its fishery and its regional development, I am reminded of a suggestion made to me by a fisherman to whom I spoke on the telephone the other day. He suggested a way to solve two major problems facing the fishery in eastern Canada. He made the suggestion because the Government of Canada was not taking any action. He said to me, "I suppose it would be a good idea for the Prime Minister of the country, while he is attending meetings in Bonn, to turn to the President of the United States on his right and whisper into his ear, 'Ron, will you lift those tariffs you imposed on our saltfish that is going to the United States?' He should then lean to his left to say to Mr. Kohl, 'Will you please stop overfishing our resources on the East Coast of Canada?' ".
The reason the fisherman said that is quite logical and simple. Since the Government came to power, the most serious action ever taken by another country against our country involving the export of saltfish from Canada was the tariff imposed by the United States Trade Department on the importation of Canadian saltfish. Why was that tariff imposed? It was imposed because a fish company in Puerto Rico figured
Supply
that it was the one and only fish company that actually salted fish within U.S. legal jurisdiction.
Because of the action taken by that small fish company in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Trade Department had to impose a tariff. This tariff ranges from 15 per cent up to 26 per cent, averaging out at 22 per cent. Every time producers from eastern Canada and from the Prime Minister's own riding- and the Prime Minister's riding is even more affected by this tariff imposed by the United States Government than any other riding-export saltfish to the United States, they have to post a bond of 22 per cent on average. That practice began two months after the Government was elected and is still going on today. Surely there is some diplomatic way for this Government to get the U.S. Government to lift that tariff that was imposed for the first time on Canadian exports of saltfish into the United States. However, nothing yet has been done about that.
We have now learned that for the last three months West Germany has been fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland using nine factory freezer trawlers of over 300 feet in length with feeder boats. These trawlers take in incredible amounts of codfish. For the past three months they have been violating an agreement signed by the EEC and Canada in 1983 that was to extend until 1987. They have overfished to the extent of, as the Department of Fisheries shows in its records from boat inspections made on the high seas as of three weeks ago, 30 times their assigned quota. However, 1 have learned that not all of the boats were visited by inspectors. They do not really know right now how much fish the West German fleet has caught.
Those fish, Mr. Speaker, are the offshore and inshore stock. They migrate to what is called the Nose of the Grand Banks and then inshore. In other words, they are the stock that Canadian fishermen in Atlantic Canada have to use to make a living. That stock creates employment in eastern Canada.
What is wrong with our system, our Government, which allows this to go on? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) admitted today that he sent his first note back in March to the EEC saying that they were violating the longterm Canada-EEC fishing agreement. But then I discover that the EEC had replied to the Canadian Government on April 17 saying categorically and bluntly that they do not recognize that as being Canadian jurisdiction. It always was and always has been recognized internationally as being Canadian jurisdiction and the fish as being Canadian stock. But the West German fleet is blatantly violating its quota and the EEC is backing them up and saying they do not recognize that as Canadian jurisdiction.
What, then, is the normal procedure for this Government to follow when that kind of action occurs? What do you do when you have a blatant violation of a written agreement and a foreign country is fishing beyond its quota to such a degree as to probably destroy the stock? The options open to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Secretary of State for Exter-

May 3, 1985
Supply
nal Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the federal Government are quite simple. The Government of Canada, as it has done in the past, can close its ports to the country which violated the agreement. In other words, that country's vessels cannot come into a Canadian port for supplies. We have done that to the Soviet Union, we have done it to several other countries.
A second option open to the Minister and the Government is that we can impose sanctions. What does that mean? It means that next year that country will not be assigned a quota.
Then there is a third and obvious option which the Government can take, an option which I am sure every single fisherman and fish plant worker, every single person in the Department of Fisheries, would want to recommend, and that is cancellation of the entire agreement with the EEC. Why? Because it is the EEC which has the problem. They are the ones who have to get their house in order. They are the ones who have to deal with the West German Government. They have to say to that Government that its fleet has overfished its quota by 300, 400 or 500 times.
Actually, to face facts here, the entire EEC quota has been exceeded three times by the West Germans alone as of today. So the Canadian Government should cancel the agreement and the EEC would then turn around and say to the West German Government that it has overfished its quota and that means that the U.K., with a quota of 850 metric tonnes, will not be able to get its quota; the French Government, with a quota of about 1,500 metric tonnes, will not be allowed to take its quota. Let the EEC straighten out their own internal affairs; let them get their house in order. Have the Canadian Government cancel the agreement and that would force the West German fleet off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and stop them from raping our resource, as the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) said this morning in Question Period.
This is a very, very serious matter. Here we have two countries, the United States and West Germany, as well as the EEC as a whole, involved in discrimination against Canadian fishermen. They see the Canadian federal Government, as this motion says, exercising indifference and negligence in not taking any action. There has never been in Canada, in the past 20 years at least, such a violation of an international agreement in the fishery and it has gone on and on and on. The Minister says "since March"; it has gone on until this very day.
The nine factory freezer trawlers that were out there with their feeder ships, these boats of more than 300 feet in length, have now been reduced to five. Why? Because the other four are all filled up and heading home; but the rest are this very morning still overfishing. And the Minister turns around and says, "Oh, we are going to have more negotiations". Well, as was made clear in this Chamber, the EEC has made its position clear: "We do not respect your jurisdiction". In all honesty I believe the EEC member countries are expecting this Government to cancel the agreement and that is what the Government has to do.
Those are just two matters in which this Government has been negligent in dealing with eastern Canada. I refer to what this new federal Government says is the answer to the fishing problems. I refer to this document called A New Direction for Canada: An Agenda for Economic Renewal, presented by the Hon. Michael H. Wilson, Minister of Finance, on November 8, 1984. The Government says new approaches are required. Well, everyone would agree with that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What page?


George Baker: Page 59. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) wants to follow along to make sure I am quoting correctly. This publication says:
Government financial resources are not the solution.
The Minister would certainly agree with that. Then we get down to the second last paragraph which says:
Consolidation of employment in the sector would have to be complemented by public and private initiatives to promote job opportunities in other sectors of the economy, as well as fair and generous adjustment programs for workers in the sector.
When you go through that entire section on fisheries, Mr. Speaker, there you see the policy, the solution proposed by this Government to the problems of the Atlantic fishery: "Consolidation of employment", and "promote job opportunities in other sectors of the economy". Can you imagine a government saying to people who work in this industry, the fishermen who feed that industry, the fish plant workers, that it is examining job opportunities elsewhere to see if it cannot work out with private enterprise a fair and generous adjustment program for workers in this sector? That is the policy direction of this Government! Even worse, if we go down to the last line, and I know the Minister is going to follow along, it says:
Fisheries decision-making needs to be more open-
Yes!
-with greater involvement by commercial fishermen-
That is quite a statement and no one would disagree with that. But where was that policy statement when the Government of Canada decided it was going to cancel the entire insurance program for fishermen's boats and then turned around and discovered it could not do that? We in the Liberal Party said that they could not do it because it would cause thousands of fishermen to lose their boats. Sure enough, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans discovered that it could not be done. He then issued a press release saying that they were going to keep up the Government insurance program but triple the rates. They were going to ensure that the plan would survive and be profitable. Mr. Speaker, every fisherman, every fisherman's organization, and every union knows that since its inception that program has had a net benefit of about $5 million. The Minister is now changing his policy.
Where was the consultation when the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) announced in the House that the Government of Canada was going to charge people for phoning the weather office? She has still not changed that
May 3, 1985

policy although she knows full well that she cannot implement it. She then waffled. She said that fishermen, farmers and other people whose livelihoods depend upon weather information will be excluded. Opposition Members asked how they could be excluded. Were they going to get their social insurance numbers over the phone? How can they find out whether they are full-time fishermen? The Minister then waffled again saying that they were going to charge everybody.
That is a very dangerous policy, Mr. Speaker. Imagine a man about to go out in his boat at five o'clock in the morning. He wants a weather update because of fast-changing weather patterns. He is involving his own life and the lives of his crew. When there is a charge for making the phone call, no matter how low the charge is, the man will know that he is being charged extra for it and he will hesitate. He will not make as many calls as he made before. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our policy should be to encourage him to make more calls than he has normally made. Where was the consultation when that policy was introduced?
Where was the consultation when the Government unilaterally increased charges on fishermen's charts and cut back on the hydrographic service charting the coastline of Atlantic Canada? The charting of the waters of eastern Canada is absolutely necessary. Most of the charts for a certain section of the coastline of eastern Canada are Captain Cook's charts. They date back to the days of the old lead line. Five years ago the Government of Canada tried to institute a policy to update those charts. It wanted to spend more money on that service. However, without consultation, the new Government has increased the charges to fishermen and started to chop from that service.
Where was the consultation when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a herring quota for this spring starting April 15 when every single harbour was frozen over? Where was the consultation when the Government announced it was going to cut back on UIC because it was examining the unemployment insurance scheme? That scheme provides a guaranteed income for the fishermen of eastern Canada and now the Government is tinkering with it with no consultation.
As this motion says, Mr. Speaker, the Government has been totally negligent and totally indifferent to the needs of fishermen in eastern Canada. The Government must start changing its policies or it will face the same fate as a lot of provincial Tory Governments will face when they are defeated in their next elections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments? Resuming debate, the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate I would point out that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has addressed his remarks to only one aspect of the motion. The motion deals with regional industrial development, fisheries and transportation. If I were to rely on the remarks of the Hon. Member, I could only presume that he is
Supply
reasonably happy with regard to regional industrial development in Atlantic Canada because he did not single out anything for criticism in that field.


George Baker: That's not true, Mr. Speaker. That's not fair.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He must be reasonably happy with regard to transportation as well. I am pleased to hear that because we feel that we can indicate some optimism with respect to Atlantic Canada. We can indicate that matters have improved greatly.
However, we must approach this debate with a word of caution, Mr. Speaker. When I read the wording of this motion I was rather startled to find that a representative of the Official Opposition would be so bold as to suggest that he would like to have a debate on the issues of regional industrial development, fisheries and transportation in Atlantic Canada when their record as a government over the previous 10 years was such an utter disaster. Others joining in this debate must remember what we inherited from the previous Government.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council did a recent study of which I was given a copy. The study included a contrast between Atlantic Canada and the states which make up the New England states. I invite all Members who are interested in the debate today to get a copy of that study. It shows that in 1975, when the Hon. Member's Party was in power, unemployment in the New England states was higher, on average, than unemployment in Atlantic Canada. By 1984 unemployment in Atlantic Canada had gone up by about 50 per cent from 1975. In the six New England states unemployment had been cut in half. During that 10-year period the average incomes of residents of Atlantic Canada were a constant 75 per cent of the national average income. I find that unfortunate. We in this Party believe that average incomes in Atlantic Canada can be much closer to the national average than has been the case over the previous years.
What happened in the New England states? We find that during the same period they had a net increase of about 10 per cent in their state products as related to the national average. This is a second barometer which indicates how unfortunate the previous Government's policies directed towards Atlantic Canada have been. I say that notwithstanding the fact that there have been literally hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Atlantic Canada in the form of subsidies, grants and other approaches.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. We are acknowledging and will continue to acknowledge that in an area such as Atlantic Canada there is room for Government assistance, whether it is a grant, an incentive or a subsidy. What we are saying, however, is that the Official Opposition in the House today has absolutely nothing to teach the people of Canada about solving the problems of Atlantic Canada. Whatever they felt were the solutions for Atlantic Canada in their term of office, we know that their solutions did not work. The people

May 3, 1985
Supply
who are out of work in Atlantic Canada today are out of work because of previous policies that did not take hold.
I am a little surprised to hear the tone of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). It is that old Liberal ploy of always assuming that it is a "foreigner", as they like to call them, who is causing the problems. If there has been any overfishing or any misuse of quotas, we are the first Government to champion the Canadian right to resist whatever that wrong has been. I suggest that it is totally wrong for a Liberal spokesperson to stand up in the House and pretend that the problems all come from some foreigner, as they suggest, as opposed to some of the misdirected policies that their colleagues put in place when they had an opportunity to govern.
It was interesting to note how the Hon. Member's speech dealt mainly with the fisheries question, which is of great concern to all of Atlantic Canada. In particular, he seemed to dwell more on the Newfoundland situation than on the four provinces generally. However, I notice that he never once mentioned Fishery Products International. That company is a main employer in the fishing industry in Newfoundland. He did not refer to it and surely Hon. Members must have wondered why.
If the Hon. Member really has the concern of fishermen in Newfoundland at heart, as he professes, why did he not make some reference to the main employer? I can suggest why, Mr. Speaker. It is because that company, when the Government left power, was in an utter disaster. The workers were on strike, the fishermen were not fishing and the processors were not employed. It did not have a chief executive officer and virtually no board of directors. In short, it was the worst example of what the Hon. Member refers to as indifference and negligence in a corporate activity that I have ever witnessed.
I am pleased to say that one of the first challenges that we accepted was to sit down with the Government of Newfoundland in an attempt to put this company into a viable position. We agreed that not only did we have to put up an equity of approximately $25 million to overcome some immediate problems, but we had to find a suitable chief executive officer and a good board of directors for him to work with. Their job was to try to make peace with the labour unions and get people back to work and hopefully get Fishery Products International back into business on a viable basis. I am pleased to inform Hon. Members of the House that we have done that.
Vic Young is an excellent chief executive officer. We intend to support him. He is backed up by one of the best corporate boards in the entire nation. I am pleased to say that settlements were reached with onshore workers and the fishermen themselves. The company is back to work.
I say this in order to put this debate into perspective. It is not only a question of our being able to get Fishery Products International working again because there are many similar situations in the Atlantic area which we inherited and which needed very immediate attention. Devco is another example which I will refer to later. As a result of some of the actions we
have taken there is new hope for that company today. Yet the previous Government had absolutely no hope for those people. Our Government has begun to restore Devco and I will give good news about Devco later on. I know that Hon. Members will be very interested to hear it.
Again, we have an example of a Crown Corporation that was left with virtually no board and no senior executive officer by a previous Government. This company, with the mining of coal as one of its principal activities, had a senior executive officer who knew nothing about coal mining. The Opposition has the audacity to walk into the House and propose a motion dealing with indifference and negligence with respect to Atlantic Canada. I notice that the Hon. Member is even giggling now, as he looks into the House. As far as I am concerned, that record will hopefully set the facts straight. Those are the hard facts and the business facts.
Let us talk about specifics. I have referred to Fishery Products International and I have referred to the Liberal inability to oversee this enterprise which is so important to Atlantic Canada. Last year it meant a disastrous strike that lasted 180 days. People were out of work not only in the plants but in the fishery itself. It is no wonder that there was no permanent chief executive officer for over 12 months. In short, the prior Government offered no support to the company.
Since we have taken office we have put in a strong chief executive officer and the board to which I have referred. That board is made up of people such as Anthony Wright, President and Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland Power Company; Paul Desmarais, Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation; Bill James, Chief Executive Officer of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd.; Howard Hawkes of Bache Securities and Frank Stronach of Magna Corp. With the work of Vic Young and a board of that calibre, I know that we will be pleased with the result.
Let me deal with the situation of National Sea Products. As Hon. Members probably know, the Government of Canada owns about 20 per cent of that company. Perhaps it has been noted in today's paper that the net profit in the last quarter ended March 1, 1985, was 40 cents a share in that company as compared with a loss of 25 cents in the same quarter last year. That is good business. That is getting that company back to a viable level. That is what we intend to do.
For all the talk coming from the Opposition benches about grants, subsidies and all the rest, let us never forget that the real bottom line is getting people back to work in this country, especially in Atlantic Canada. When we talk about doing more in the private sector, creating the atmosphere and essentially creating jobs, that is our objective. I know that all our Members, as far as the coming Budget is concerned, are going to take new hope when they hear some of the measures that will be proposed to get Canadians back to work once again.
This is not a time, as the Opposition benches seem to love to foster and dwell on, for doom and gloom. This is essentially a time for new hope, to be taking a look at opportunities and not
May 3, 1985

problems. I can tell Hon. Members that since we took office last September we have signed seven economic and regional development agreements with the four Atlantic provinces; two each with Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia and one with New Brunswick. For these the federal Government has allotted almost $230 million. Does that sound like indifference, Mr. Speaker? Does that sound like negligence, as the Hon. Member from the Official Opposition would have us believe? The people in Atlantic Canada know this is a Government that is attentive to their problems.
In addition to the $230 million to which I have referred, let us not forget the Atlantic Accord with Newfoundland which calls for a further $225 million in federal funds. Isn't it odd that a Member from Newfoundland would stand up and speak on this subject and not say how pleased he was that the offshore oil situation has been settled in a way satisfactory to the Government of Newfoundland?


An Hon. Member:: He forgot.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Somebody just suggested that maybe he forgot. Opposition Members do have very convenient memories.
I could go on and relate the multitude of programs that we are enhancing and developing as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. For the last fiscal year, right up to the end of March, let me mention that ongoing programs pumped $ 128,751,000 in federal funds into the Atlantic economy.
I mentioned earlier that I felt the record I related to was unsatisfactory and could be improved. I can also tell you that one of the most encouraging things, Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as development Minister, has been to meet with my provincial counterparts. That first occurred here in Ottawa in January. Incidentally that was the first time in Canadian history that development Ministers at the provincial and federal level have ever had a joint meeting. We did that. We met in Quebec City and further advanced co-operation and identified goals that we wanted to attain to get people back to work.
Later this month we will be going to Vancouver. Once again we will be having meetings. Later we are to go to St. John's, Newfoundland for a meeting in the summer. We have been meeting every two months. We believe there is an urgency in getting Canada's regions back to work to enjoy the prosperity that they rightly deserve as far as the federal Government is concerned.
I mentioned that I would love to come back to Devco. I am very pleased to be able to tell Hon. Members that here is a company that over the years has had hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into it. As I mentioned, the previous Government abandoned it. In fact, the company never did have a chief executive officer who had any experience in the mining business. We named Derek Ranee as the chief executive officer. I met with him yesterday. He is taking some excellent steps to ensure the viability of Devco. But here is the good news. That company for the first time in a decade is going to show a profit for the past year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That profit has come from the fact that we have been able to get a 31 per cent increase in output per man-shift, a 25 per cent reduction in absenteeism and a 17 per cent reduction in accident frequency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We think we are on the right track. I can tell you, sir, that the more we clear away the underbrush, the indecision and the confusion which the last Government left us, the more we know we are on the right track as far as Devco is concerned. Because of the excellent results, we have agreed that there should be a profit-sharing plan for the employees of Devco, and the profit to which I have referred, the first profit that corporation has had for 10 years, will be shared 10 per cent by the employees and management of Devco, the people who have produced those results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the Brian Mulroney Government in action. We feel that Atlantic Canada can once again be one of the most viable, economically prosperous areas of this country, and if the Official Opposition would just back off a little, it will be surprised how quickly this turnaround is going to occur.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


George Baker: I was smilling at the Minister from behind the curtains because I could see what a bind the Minister was in in trying to participate in this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: He did not seem to have much flow or logic in what he was saying. On the one hand he was saying, "Well, any unemployment and bad performance is due to the last Liberal Government".


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


George Baker: Then all of a sudden he said, "Well, for last year Devco is making a profit, but that is due to our Government." Last year was 1984, Mr. Speaker.
It is very interesting to hear what the Minister said. He accused me at the beginning of not mentioning transportation or regional development. The reason I did not is that I never got around to it. I got so caught up talking about the bad performance of this Government in the fisheries that I did not have the time to get to what the Government has done in transportation and regional development and what this Minister has done by cutting out $200 million. From where did the Minister cut this money? He cut it from the industrial incentives program. In the document tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), he should explain what lay behind that move of his Government. The Minister does not realize certain things. He should examine the new ferry rates on the East Coast of Canada. He should examine all the

May 3, 1985
Supply
cut-backs. What about all the boat services that have been cancelled on the south coast of Newfoundland? The Minister should look at how much it will cost him and his family to get over to one of the provinces in eastern Canada since this Government has taken over.
Let me ask the Minister a question. The Minister talked about Fisheries Products International. He said it is now on an even keel. He really took credit for Fisheries Products International. Did the Minister agree with the action taken by the former Government in setting up Fisheries Products International? Did he agree with the amount of money that went into the setting up of that company?
Second, the minister now says everything is fine and dandy. Everything is on an even keel. Is the Minister saying that there will not be any closures of fish plants under Fisheries Products International? That is an interesting question, Mr. Speaker, with the advent of this Government's policy of consolidation in the fishing industry. Will the Minister answer yes or no in this House under this great Fisheries Products International that he claims he has reorganized? Is he saying that all fish plants will remain open, or is he going to relocate the workers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can keep the record straight, notwithstanding the interventions of the Hon. Member. When I referred to the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the first time in the past decade swinging into a profitable position, I was referring to the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985. The fact is that when we took over in September last year, the company was still operating at a loss. In the last six months to seven months we were able to swing it around, so that we can now say that it is into the black as far as operating figures are concerned. The profit to which I am referring contrasts to a loss the year before, March 31, 1984, of $49 million. That is the way the previous Government was running this company.
The Hon. Member asked me whether I agreed with their financing plan for FPI. Let there be no doubt what the financing plan was. It was a bail-out for the banks. It was essentially an arrangement to allow the banks to recover moneys which they had advanced. There was very little put up to ensure that the company would be viable and could operate for the benefit of the employees who needed the assistance of FPI to get on with their fishing occupations. That is the truth, and I hope there will be no doubt as far as the House is concerned.


George Baker: I would like the Minister to answer the question. Did he agree with the policy of the former Government and the input of some $100 million in total into that reorganized structure? Did he agree with the actions of the former Liberal Government which the Premier of Newfoundland called the greatest thing since Confederation? Did he agree with the Premier of Newfoundland? When he talks about how great Fisheries Products International now is, is he saying that there will be no closures of plants and no consolidations into other sectors, as the policy statement of this Government indicates?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Hon. Member has raised the question of financing. He mentioned about $100 million, but he only told half the story. Money went in but it also went out to pay off the banks substantially, as far as their ongoing credits were concerned. In that respect I feel the previous Government was rather naive in what it put together as a refinancing package.
Here again I find the Hon. Member's approach very fascinating. He reflects the interventionist tendency of the previous Government. He wants me to comment on what the present executive or board may or may not be doing with respect to the operation of the company. In due course, because it is more than 50 per cent owned by the people of Canada, we naturally will be reporting back to the House. However, let me assure all Hon. Members that I do not think anything is gained by running commentaries by some politicians as to what they think in a day to day sense should or should not be done in Fisheries Products International. I am pleased that they are back to work, that productivity has risen, and that fishermen once again are able to ply their occupations in the fishery, not listen to a lot of pompous political speeches about what might or might not be possible.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Minister has not made such a pompous speech this morning, in that case. Also I am pleased with the conversion to recognizing the virtues of public enterprise. I suspect some other earth-shaking things to happen in the near future, such as foxes endorsing the virtues of hounds chasing them in the hunt and alligators favouring purse manufacturers. This is a kind of conversion which is so magnificent that I cannot help but congratulate the Minister on it.
However, I want to ask the Minister whether he is now prepared to answer some questions which were raised in the previous debate on Atlantic Canada. These were questions which we posed at the time, coming out of our action group visit to Atlantic Canada. Three of those questions remain particularly relevant. I am talking about the debate on January 25. I might have hoped that the Minister, if he were not indifferent or negligent, would have answered these questions by now.
First, could the Minister tell us whether he is yet prepared to meet the request of workers at Sysco to assist with federal funding to improve productivity and the future export capacity of that company?
Second, is the Minister able to tell me whether an arrangement has finally been worked out with the Woodlot Owners Federation in New Brunswick with respect to reforestation plans there? I talked with the president of that association just two weeks ago, and the Minister had not yet been able to sort out that arrangement.
Third, has the Minister been able to see to it that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has reached an agreement with the Canada Works Program in Newfoundland that we stressed, on the basis of groups which talked to us, was not representing employment equity in its
May 3, 1985

allocation of jobs as between men and women in that province?
Would the Minister be prepared to provide answers to these quite important questions which frankly have been hanging about for some time and which I expected him to answer before now?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), I can only in passing comment upon the fact that only yesterday the Hon. Member somehow or other got out of Canada and started to raise a question which would have been more relevant in Washington, D.C. Today he has taken us down to alligator country while we talk about Atlantic Canada, and then he got into the question of foxes. I must admit that perhaps there is no better Member of this House to speak about foxes than the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. Then he dealt with the question of Sysco. As he undoubtedly knows, Sysco has been mainly the responsibility of the Government of Nova Scotia. There are discussions at the present time concerning its future activities. Of course, we are participating in those discussions with a view to trying to do what we believe will be right for the people involved with that company.
The Hon. Member also referred to forestry in New Brunswick. I know he will be very pleased with an announcement, which will be made probably within the week, concerning some activity in New Brunswick that most Members of the House would heartily endorse. As well, he referred to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with respect to certain ongoing discussions with Newfoundland. I can only say that I think it would be more appropriate for my employment colleague to comment on that aspect of the question.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately the time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will start his speech at two o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had hoped to raise this point of order before the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) left. Now that
Supply
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is in the Chamber, perhaps he could clarify the point.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said in his remarks this morning that there were two new agreements signed with the Province of Newfoundland since his side of the House became the Government of Canada. To my knowledge, that is not the case. There have been announcements of intentions, but to my knowledge there have not been two new agreements signed that were not originated by this side of the House when we were the Government of Canada previously. I know the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion did not intend to mislead the House. Maybe he was right, but I do not think he was. Possibly somebody could clarify that for me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that in my opinion this unfortunately is not a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are large gaps in the knowledge of the hon. gentleman. When I speak later this afternoon I will address myself to his inadvertent lapses of memory. I will describe all that has been done for Newfoundland and Labrador in the last seven months, more than in the last 10 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: That doesn't answer the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had the floor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must say, since I am going to make a speech, that I feel I should rise on a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have not done a thing for the Atlantic provinces.


Steven W. Langdon: Give us a chance.


John Carnell Crosbie: You will never have the chance.


Steven W. Langdon: I first want to express my pleasure at having the opportunity to speak today. This is a fine morning in Ontario after a demonstration last night of what indifference and negligence can result in for Governments that are guilty of that. I suspect there are few Conservatives today in the House of Commons who are not sitting slightly less comfortably in their seats. For me, that is a pleasure.
I have to remind people, as the voters of Ontario reminded the Government last night, that a tough jury is out on all of us, a tough jury that has to be satisfied that we are dealing with all the crucial issues in front of this country. I give congratulations to the Liberal Party in this House of Commons on the gains it made in Ontario. I give hearty congratulations to my colleagues in my Party, particularly in Windsor where we managed to take a seat away from the Liberal Party.
I also have to say that it is a pleasure to be part of the same debate as the "Minister for closure". The Minister for closure

May 3, 1985
Supply
is not very happy with debate and discussion within the House, so I am pleased to actually see him today. It is not often that he is prepared to participate in such important debates, I fear, in view of his predilection for getting controversial legislation passed fast.
This is a motion on Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada is a part of this country where our action group spent a good deal of time and learned a good deal. It is a part of the country where we found the tragedy of unemployment to be particularly severe and particularly sad. I want to begin my contribution today with a quotation from a report by the Social Justice Network of Sydney, Nova Scotia. It talks about one of the underemphasized sides of the unemployment crisis, about the fact that it is not just parents who bear the brunt of the unemployment crisis but children as well. I quote:
We have noticed that children's reactions to unemployment are similar to those of adults, these being apathy, boredom, depression, a sense of loss, worry, anxiety, defeat and resignation. We feel that like their parents, children who are exposed for long periods of time to unemployment are at risk of becoming emotionally unstable.
Those are the human costs that face us as we talk today about the problems of Atlantic Canada.
In his contribution the Minister suggested that the bottom line is jobs and job performance. I agree with him. Obviously Conservative Members who applauded his words so vigorously also agree. We must look first at that bottom line. What that bottom line tells us is that for all four Atlantic provinces, the unemployment rate has gone up dramatically since this Government took office.
In the case of Newfoundland, the unemployment rate is as high as 24.6 per cent as compared with 23.3 per cent a year ago. In Prince Edward Island, the unemployment rate is now 17.6 per cent as compared with 15.9 per cent a year ago. In Nova Scotia, it is now 17.3 per cent as compared with 15 per cent a year ago. In New Brunswick, it is now 19.9 per cent as compared with 17.6 per cent a year ago. Some bottom line! In social accounting terms and in terms of human costs and benefits, that is a sad story indeed.
I do not want to deal only with the gloomy facts although those facts themselves are gloomy enough. I would like to suggest to Hon. Members here today that there is a positive direction in which we as a Parliament can proceed. This direction will give the people of Atlantic Canada and indeed the people of the entire country a sense of hope and confidence for the future.
In the action group report released by our Party early in April, we laid out a series of commitments to community self-direction, to building on our resources, to corporate accountability and to equity in the workforce which would provide a direction for this country and a hope for Atlantic Canada. I recommend these commitments to government Members as they look to their own Budget later this month.
The direction we laid out in that report speaks directly to the potential of Atlantic Canada, a potential that we ourselves
saw in Newfoundland when we heard the ideas and plans for fishing co-operatives expressed to us by the fishermen's union in Newfoundland. We have seen these ideas transformed into direct concrete action in the case of New Dawn Enterprises of Cape Breton Island, a co-operative which has provided jobs and hope to that community. This potential was expressed to us by members of the Federation of Woodlot Owners of New Brunswick who told us in detail how switching funds to them for reforestation could get the trees we need for our future industries and could give us more jobs.
We saw that potential in the messages that came to us about the accountability of a company like Noranda, a company which has taken so much out of the Province of New Brunswick but, when asked to pay it back by making one commitment, a commitment to provide a zinc refinery in that province, played political games for years and finally turned down the request. We see that potential in the Indian communities of New Brunswick with which we spoke just last month after our action group report was released. People in those communities told us that this report did provide a focus on their needs which they had not seen from previous Governments. It is possible to take a positive direction. This positive direction is one which must reverse the kinds of policies which were followed by the previous Government.
We in this country have had ten years of trickle-down economics. It has not worked. We have had ten years of attempts to get the economy moving by giving extra breaks to those who are well off. It is time to take a trickle-up approach. For ten years we have been putting our trust as a country in the hands of Ottawa bureaucrats and the large corporate sector. That has not worked either. It is time to trust people and their communities across this country. For ten years we have been cutting our trade barriers, supposedly to help our economy. That has backfired. It is time to use our trade barriers as levers to help us win a position in the tough international economy.
We in this Party have looked for practical and positive ways to use a trickle-up approach and to put trust into our communities. We see a way that this can be accomplished in the very Budget that will come down this month. We could give to the people of Canada the tax breaks they deserve. We have suggested that $2.7 billion in tax help be given to middle and lower income earners rather than to the corporate sector and the wealthy of the country. We have suggested that there be a clear set of expenditures for community initiatives which would give communities across the country the capacity to put into reality their dreams. These are dreams of new small business ventures, of new co-operative ventures, of municipal ventures and of improving resources within communities. Our young people have dreams of making jobs for themselves. However, this is not going to just happen; it takes leadership and a Government that provides that leadership.
As well, we have suggested that $1.1 billion be spent on resource upgrading, that $200 million be spent on the forestry sector and that $150 million be spent on the fishery sector. This is the kind of positive commitment which the previous
May 3, 1985

Government lacked and which this Government, despite its rhetoric, has not been prepared to provide. We have as well suggested support for agriculture and for energy alternatives.
The right direction is there. It is possible to take the new approach of trusting our communities in this Budget. It is possible to take a bottom-up approach that would give us the jobs that are so desperately required. It is possible to affect the economy positively. Instead, what do we see? Why are we rising today to support this motion of non-confidence in the Government with respect to its neglect of Atlantic Canada?
When looking at the actual performance of the Government as opposed to the honeyed phrases and bombastic commentaries, we see that there has been a lack of action. We see negligence and neglect. The Minister spoke of meetings and I applaud that. However, there is a point at which meetings must translate into action. Attending meeting after meeting as described by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion does not help an unemployed woodworker in Newfoundland. It does not help the fishermen in Cape Breton or the 55 per cent of the workforce out of work in Newcastle, New Brunswick. It takes action and that is what we have not had.
[DOT] (M20)
We have not even had a Budget from this Government as yet. But we have had cuts; in social housing and the residential rehabilitation program. This Minister of closure who got up to talk about what a magnificent job he is doing did not bother to mention the cuts in IRDP which has left Halifax, as one example, ineligible to receive grants for modernization and expansion. How can the Conservative members who represent that part of Canada feel happy and confident with that direction?
There has been no action on Sysco despite the request from the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia for federal help to put that enterprise back on its feet. Then we have the woodlots. The Federation of Woodlot Owners in New Brunswick made a simple request, five months ago by my count, for more funding to help local, small woodlot producers reforest their lots. Five months and no action yet. How can this Government justify that? Atlantic Canada put its confidence in those Members and they are not coming through. Co-operatives are very important in Atlantic Canada, but has this Government done anything to help them? Not a thing.
This Government believes that the answer to all our problems lies outside our boundaries. This Government truly believes that the foreign investment community, thanks to the magnificent honeyed tones of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), will flock in and solve our problems. The people of the Maritimes have had far too much experience with the Doscos and Hawker Siddeleys of the world to expect that foreign investment is going to be some kind of magic cure. Then we have free-trade zones. This is the new pot at the end of the rainbow. We can somehow turn Cape Breton into a free-trade zone, get rid of minimum wages, get back to the free market where we can compete with Korea. Fantastic stuff. What a vision! What a sense of commitment to and confidence in the
Supply
Canadian people. This Government believes that competing with Taiwan and Korea is the answer to our problems. Free trade with the United States is the other magic solution.
What all of these ideas have in common is that they have not been thought through, they will not come to pass, and even if they did they would not solve the job problems of the hundreds of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada who are looking for a future. Where is the faith in Canadians? Where is the faith in small business people? Where is the faith in the co-operative tradition in Atlantic Canada? Where is the faith in the men and women of that part of the country, people who told us again and again and again of positive, exciting ideas they had to build their communities and create the jobs we need? Yet this Government is not responding to that sense of hope and potential. It puts its faith in magic solutions from the outside instead of real answers based on Canadian communities.
What we heard from Atlantic Canada was that they are tired of hand-outs; they are tired of short-term, make-work projects. They want a long-term future. They want jobs based in and on their communities, but this Government has not as yet shown it has heard that message. Perhaps it will, I hope it will, but on the basis of its record since September 4 I have to say: neglect, negligence; the evidence is there. I hope the evidence will be changed in this coming Budget, but for the moment it is clear this Government has failed Atlantic Canada and it deserves to hang its head in shame for that failure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Warner:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in his introductory remarks, congratulated certain members of his Party and certain members of the Liberal Party. In the Ontario riding of Cornwall the Conservative candidate, Luc Guindon, was successful in winning a seat which had been held by the NDP. I was wondering if inadvertently the Hon. Member had forgotten to congratulate the Conservatives.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. I had thought, to be fair, that I should not comment too much on the Conservative performance in yesterday's election. As I look through the detailed results I thought it might be best, out of a sense of charity and friendliness, not to mention what had happened to my poor Conservative friends in Ontario. However, since the question has been raised I feel honour bound to talk with concern about what has happened to Mr. Miller and his regime.


Dave Nickerson: Tell us who came in last.


Steven W. Langdon: I see, for instance, there has been a tremendous loss in Toronto. Here in Ottawa there have been losses. I see that in London, even Ministers were defeated. I see that the poor Minister of Labour in Sault Ste. Marie, and I can understand my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are way off the motion. Resuming debate.

May 3, 1985
Supply


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to be able to debate this motion before the House today. This matter needs attention and has been ignored for far too long. In dealing with the motion I would ike to deal with the three areas mentioned. With respect to the first and the problems with the fisheries, that question has been dealt with very ably this morning by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), and will be discussed this afternoon by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).
With respect to the question of transportation, there are quite a few problems which I think have to be discussed in that area and it relates directly to the future of Atlantic Canada. I have spoken to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) about these questions and I must say in his defence that he heard me out and gave me the time to discuss them. I can only hope that he and his Government will be sympathetic, will study the question and realize the seriousness of these transportation issues in relation to Atlantic Canada. I would like to mention a few this afternoon.
One issue relates to the problem of Terra Transport. That company was forced to increase its fees, which put it in a bad position in relation to its competitors. When the CTC requested that they make that fee increase, they put the railroad in Newfoundland in jeopardy. That can have a very serious effect on the Province of Newfoundland.
The question of whether this increase can be enforced or rolled over and negated is now before the courts. In the meantime, the Minister of Transport has agreed to roll back the fees to their level before the increase took place. If these increased fees are allowed to stand, there will be a tremendous negative effect on CN Martine. CN Marine is the Crown corporation which provides ferry service between the Atlantic provinces and Maine. It is an integral part of the transportation network.
CN Marine is having tremendous difficulties at the present time in relation to the number of people it is laying off in Atlantic Canada. The employees who are being laid off are not junior employees who just got a job, got married and bought a house. These are men with 15 to 20 years seniority who have bought houses and have children who are going to university. These men are being laid off at the time in their lives when their expenses are the highest. The people in Atlantic Canada feel that if there are to be decreases in the number of employees at CN Marine, that should take place through a moratorium on hiring rather than through lay-offs. These men have worked for the Government of Canada through a Crown corporation. They have given the best part of their lives to their communities. How are they going to find alternate employment now? It is very important that the Government of Canada realizes its obligations to these men and women.
Last October Canadian National divided CN Express from CN Rail, making them two separate Crown corporations with two separate bargaining units. Previously in Atlantic Canada
men who were laid off in either arm of CN could bump someone in another area. This can no longer happen. The men working for CN Rail were frozen there and those working for CN Route, as it became known, were frozen there. They could not move from one to the other. Therefore, if they are laid off, that is the end of it. They cannot take on another position. That is very serious. The reason for this is that CN wanted to be able to do away with permanent employees and retain the services of temporary employees. They would then not have to give the benefits and would have greater control over whether or not they needed the services of people. That is a very serious situation and a serious point of view for a Crown corporation to take.
The situation at CN Marine is in jeopardy partly because of the subsidy which the federal Government must pay to CN Marine. On the other hand, the federal Government is paying a multi-million dollar subsidy to Atlantic Container Express to ship directly from Montreal to St. John's, Newfoundland. This reduces the business of CN Marine between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland.
The federal Government is saying that it is going to give a subsidy to CN Marine and a subsidy to Atlantic Container Express. The subsidy to Atlantic Container Express allows them to provide the competition to CN Marine, thereby reducing the income of CN Marine, again increasing its subsidy. Therefore, the subsidy to Atlantic Container Express is in turn creating a larger subsidy to CN Marine. We must get our act together. Mr. Speaker. The Government must become aware of the transportation concerns in Atlantic Canada.
This morning in the House I saw a Minister sink to the lowest level to which I have ever seen a Minister of the government sink. This morning the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) gave a speech in the House which was an insult to the problems and needs of Atlantic Canada. He took the credit for the improved position of National Sea Products. He did nothing for National Sea Products. He did not even mention the workers or management of National Sea Products and their contribution to the improved position of that corporation. Then he said he had good news about the Cape Breton Development Corporation which has as its jurisdiction the island of Cape Breton.
Industrial Cape Breton at the present time has an unemployment rate acknowledged by Employment Canada of 29.5 per cent. The level admitted privately by Employment Canada is over 40 per cent. The people of industrial Cape Breton have been waiting for months for good news from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the man who holds the purse strings for regional development and investment which will help the economic base of industrial Cape Breton.
The Minister's news was that this year Devco is going to show a profit and that he was going to introduce 10 per cent profit sharing with the workers of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Wasn't it wonderful what his Government had done? He did not mention that the management policy which created this profit was brought forward by the chair-
May 3, 1985

man, Joe Shannon, who was appointed by the former Liberal Government. However, that is not the major feature. This profit was made possible by the work, sweat, problems and difficulties of the miners on Cape Breton Island rather than through any action of this pompous Minister of the Government. For him to take any credit for what happened in the Cape Breton Development Corporation is completely and utterly insulting to the people of Cape Breton.
Not only is he taking credit for something that the people managed to do for themselves despite the adversities of industrial Cape Breton, but his good news did not relate to that which he had promised the people of industrial Cape Breton. On January 25, 1985, an Opposition day sponsored by the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), he said that positive announcements would be coming very soon with respect to that company, referring to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. At that time he did not know that there would be a profit for the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as minimal as that good news would be for the people who are unemployed in Cape Breton. In that respect he has not brought forward any good news. He has not kept his promise to the people of Cape Breton to do something about the plight of that area of our country.
What is happening? We must be concerned, Mr. Speaker, because as I have said, the unemployment rate is officially 29.5 per cent and unofficially over 40 per cent. The people of Glace Bay would be so pleased to hear that he did so much for them by creating this profit. They have an unemployment rate of 50 per cent in that town. The two industries, No. 26 Colliery and the Highland Fishery in Glace Bay, were destroyed by Fire in the last 14 months. They would be pleased to hear the good news. They have been hanging on to the hope there will be something forthcoming to salvage not only the economy of Glace Bay but the whole industrial area of Cape Breton. They will be very impressed by the news of the Minister and the hypocrisy of what has been said in the House by the Government.
Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, recently had a special benefit concert on the CBC. A recent article in a periodical told of the hope and good spirits of the people of Glace Bay and their generosity in donating to charitable campaigns, such as to the people of Ethiopia. They have been doublecrossed by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens).
The people of Sydney Mines are also without an industry. That city of 10,000 people has no industry and nothing is being planned by the Government. It is a disgrace that the Government would treat the problems of Canadians in such a cavalier and pompous fashion.
The Minister has talked about Devco and that it will turn it around. Devco did not turn it around this morning when Haak Engineering, a company that was formed by the industrial development division of Devco, lost their contract with the Cape Breton Development Corporation to a company in the United Kingdom. It had to lay off all but two of its employees
Supply
in Cape Breton Island. It is only more bad news for the industrial area of Cape Breton.
The Minister talks about meetings. It is time to stop meeting and start to take action. All that the Minister has done is set up two studies, but what will this do for those peole who come to see me? For example, there is a young couple who have lost their home because it does not have any heat or water. They have two children and are living with the wife's parents. Her father is bedridden and the six members of that family must live on the grandfather's pension. While this takes place, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion holds meetings and sets up committees to conduct studies. He does not even trust his own bureaucrats.
There are professionals in his Department who have studied industrial Cape Breton. He has officials in the directorate under the Director General but nothing is being done. He does not trust them. The Minister operates in a vacuum and the problems of regional development in Atlantic Canada are going unanswered. The Government will have to correct that situation and the Minister will have to be held accountable.
The Minister says that this is not the time for doom and gloom. What does he expect from people in Atlantic Canada when the unemployment rate has gone up to 29.5 per cent? The Minister has compared the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada to that in New England. He said that the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada has gone down and it has gone up in New England by 50 per cent. When the Tory Government was elected on September 4, the official unemployment rate in industrial Cape Breton was 19 per cent. As of the end of March it was 29.5 per cent. That is an increase of over 50 per cent since the Government has been in power. The Government cannot tell Canadians that it is doing something for Atlantic Canada and for the unemployed in this country and that it is acting on the concept of regional development.
The Government has done nothing positive in industrial Cape Breton. What has it done? It cancelled the building of a decentralized office which would have created 100 construction jobs. It has taken away an income security office which was to be decentralized from Halifax. That would have created 85 jobs in downtown Sydney. Not only would it help in job creation, it would have had a spin-off effect that would have enhanced the downtown area of Sydney. The Minister and his friend, Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia, have managed to sabotage a $12 million subsidiary agreement for downtown Sydney.
The former Liberal Government approved $8 million not only at Cabinet but through Treasury Board. Where is that money at a time when people in industrial Cape Breton are unemployed and going without hope because of the broken promises of the Minister?
The North Sydney wharf has been cancelled. Half of phase three and phase four of the expansion of the coast guard college have been cancelled. The wash plant at the Prince Mine at Point Aconi has been cancelled. That is what the Government has done for industrial Cape Breton. Everything the Government has done is negative. The Government will

May 3, 1985
Supply
have to explain itself properly to the people of industrial Cape Breton.
This neglect is a result of an elitist policy by a Government that has no feeling for people. It has only been following elitist principles and has displayed no co-ordination in its policies. It is cancelling transportation programs and regional development programs when those programs would be in lock step with attracting industrial possibilities for Cape Breton and other areas of Atlantic Canada. These setbacks to industrial Cape Breton apply as well to the whole of Atlantic Canada. This will not go unnoticed by the people of Atlantic Canada, I can assure the House.
There was reference to the Sydney Steel Corporation. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) put forward an important point. However, the problem is with both the federal and provincial Governments because not only is the provincial Government refusing to put in a request for funding for Sysco, but the federal Government will not take action as a result of that refusal. Both Governments are doing a jig at the expense of the Sydney Steel Corporation.
The federal Government is an elitist Government that has no concept of regional development. The Minister did not mention the concept of regional development during his speech this morning. He thinks that regional development is strengthening the muscles in his posterior.
The Government must reverse its attitude about eliminating regional development because an entire area of this country is dependent upon the support of the Government. The Government is creating unemployment and taking away hope in this country. The Government is doing this to the unemployed all across Canada as well as to low-income Canadians and those on fixed incomes. It is creating a society within a society. It is supporting the upwardly mobile people who can take care of themselves and forgetting about those who need training and help. It is forgetting about the young who need help to get their first job. The Government is failing those people and therefore the country.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I see that the matrimonial bliss that has existed so long between the NDP and the Liberal Party is still in place. They will have no need whatsoever for that new divorce capability which was introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). I would think that after the election in the Province of Ontario the NDP might have learned that if they want to go on their own course they should perhaps criticize the Grits somewhat as well as the Tories. Their future might be enhanced. As long as that matrimonial bliss is maintained, no divorce is required. They will stay where they are and maybe slip back.
I have a question for the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). There were three former Maritime Premiers in the Senate or the House of Commons. Why were these questions not addressed to them when the Hon. Member sat on this side of the House? Would he also explain why, in this motion, he has settled his entire debate on a single issue, namely his own constituency? While I am
interested in my constituency, I have to be a Canadian as well and my interests must be of a national nature.
Why is there a deficiency in the refrigeration and freezing capability of our fishing fleet? How does it happen that we have inherited the difficulties in the fishing industry of overfishing, over-licensing and expenditure of resources by bad management? Why was that not addressed since this is partly a fisheries question? It is not just the harbour in Cape Breton.
How does it happen that the Hon. Member, in his sincere interest for Atlantic Canada, has not realized that all ports of Canada under the new ports legislation would go into the new independent ports structure with an equal debt? The Hon. Member has not addressed the fact that Saint John is the only former National Harbours Board port which has a burden of debt which it cannot carry and operate in competition.
Why did the Hon. Member not address the matter of the very minimal attention that has been devoted to quality in world markets? Why has the Hon. Member not devoted some attention to the fact that in the fishery we might not have had to socialize the whole structure if we had not had a complex which utterly and totally refused to accept the idea that perhaps somebody from outside this land might be able to assist in marketing and processing and in improving the fish markets of Canada as a whole?
Why has the Hon. Member exercised all the prejudices that he has expressed today, when he was on the Government side of the House long enough to have corrected them all? They should not have been inherited. Why has he not addressed the fact that in those years when the Liberal Government was in power that Government did not address the maritime feed freight assistance program? How does it happen that you could on September 4, and still can, have five cents more profit on a pig produced in Edmonton and marketed in Halifax than on the pig produced in the Annapolis Valley and marketed in Halifax, a situation caused by a deterioration in national policy which was intended to recognize all of Canada?
These are the questions I think the Hon. Member might have addressed. I compliment him for addressing his own constituency but this is a broad-based motion. It certainly should have addressed the whole structure of Atlantic Canada and its needs.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address with a great deal of pleasure the question put by my hon. friend on the other side. I would like to say I certainly have not agreed with everything that was done by the former Government. As I said in the House today, there were a lot of things that Government did that were cancelled after the election as a result of the present Government's policy of attrition. That is taking into consideration only politics and not taking people into consideration. There are people relying on those politics. It was a shameful practice. It should be abhorrent to all Members of this House. I wish I had had more time to discuss the things the Hon. Member mentioned.
May 3, 1985

He mentioned the marketing of fisheries products. That was an area in which a very severe cut was imposed by this Government. I have notes here on energy that, I would have loved to use but I did not have the time. I say to the Hon. Member that I realize the point he is making, that there are problems in all of Atlantic Canada and this Government better realize that. But I am the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Fred Alward McCain: We inherited them.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: These are the people who elected me. Had I had a whole afternoon, I would have got around to the things he mentioned.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) on probably one of the best speeches he has given to the House of Commons. I am fully aware that he has a great deal of concern for the people he represents. I do not want my comments to be interpreted as taking away from that at all. I was sadly disappointed, however, that the Hon. Member did not propose anything positive that might put things right in industrial Cape Breton. He had that doom and gloom sense which Liberals very often have about them. This was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), who asked what the Member had been doing for so long when the Party he supports was in office. What the Hon. Member was giving us was a kind of farewell to Nova Scotia speech.
1 had an opportunity to visit the Hon. Member's riding not too long ago and to spend some time with Devco in Cape Breton. I returned with something of a different attitude. I know there are serious problems of unemployment and that things must be done to improve the industrial situation, but I returned with the attitude that there are great things possible in the coal industry there. Coal is expensive to mine in Cape Breton but once you have it, you have it in tide water. Transportation costs to market virtually anywhere in the world are far less than they might be with, say, western coal. Nova Scotian coal enjoys an advantage. With the closure, unfortunate in a way, of No. 26 Colliery, beneficial things did occur because it was the least efficient of the mines. Now with the new Lingan Phalen mine coming into production and the possibilities of Donkin coming in, I see a great future for the Nova Scotia coal industry.
I noticed both in the management and in the workforce there a great esprit de corps. People obviously know what they are doing and they have confidence in themselves and in the future of the coal industry. I wanted to inject into the debate something of that spirit of optimism. We cannot write off, nor should we write off, Cape Breton. I think it has a long way to go and a great part to play in the future of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his important and positive question. I cer-
Supply
tainly do not take any offence to it whatever. The question helps me if the Chair will give me time to answer it.
I see possibilities for industrial Cape Breton, and indeed for the whole of Atlantic Canada, but that has to be done with the help of both provincial and federal Governments. Referring to doom and gloom, the doom and gloom represents what we see Governments doing on behalf of Atlantic Canada. If we see there is hope and Governments are sincere about helping us, then there will not be the feeling of doom and gloom. Goodness knows, people in Atlantic Canada and industrial Cape Breton could not have carried on without that hope and without feeling there would be a better time. The problem is that industrial development is competitive.
Recently Pratt & Whitney announced that it was going to Halifax. If someone had said to Pratt & Whitney, "You have to go to industrial Cape Breton," that company would have said no. What should be done? Would that mean you would give them all the money they needed to go to industrial Cape Breton? The answer is no. One has to look at the situation as one aspect. We have to encourage industry. We have to tell industry that industry will be successful there and that there is a good industrial framework. As part of that framework one must co-ordinate all departments, both provincially and federally, so that one hand is not doing something contrary to what the other hand wants done. One must not reduce transportation facilities that will be needed for the industrial possibilities which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Development in Nova Scotia feel will be necessary to entice development. They have to work together and co-ordinate. You have to have the infrastructure in a community that people need. You have to have schools and hospitals that meet what the people want. That is part of regional development. You have to have downtown facilities that are not elaborate but a conceptual idea of what you are going to develop in that community. Then the people who locate and live there will see this as a community that is being planned for a positive future.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this motion has been moved so that we can produce some facts to show what has been done for Atlantic Canada. However, I have had the unfortunate experience of listening to two discourses which really make one despair.
When I listened to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), I thought to myself of an old song. To paraphrase that old song, it goes, "Oh, Russell, I hardly knew you". Where was all this passion, emotion and disgust a year ago? After all, it was the Liberal Party, which that hon. gentleman represents, that was in power for the last 20 years while these conditions that he described were allowed to arise in Cape Breton. The Hon. Member himself has been here for the last four or five years. Everything he said today about Cape Breton was just as true a year ago, and nothing was done about it. The situation was allowed to worsen and to worsen by

May 3, 1985
Supply
that Government and that Hon. Member. Yet we heard him today, and all we could think was: What a fine actor. They are marvels at spurious indignation. Where was that indignation last year? They are marvels at hypocritical alarm, carefully constructed crocodile tears, yowling, howling, bawling and mewling; not policy, puling, drooling, hoping to fool them. We did not hear one suggestion from the hon. gentleman about what should be done to help Cape Breton or the unemployed, or what this Government should have done over the last 20 years. It was like the wind whistling through a whale's spout and just as useful. The hon. gentleman was not even as useful and did not make as much sense as a blow-hole of a whale would have made. I have heard many whales through their blow-holes. They were all more interesting, made more sense, had more logic and wasted less time than did the hon. gentleman in his speech in the House, and they would have been a lot more effective.
Patriotism used to be described as the last refuge of the scoundrel, but it is not patriotism any longer. It is spurious indignation, hypocritical alarm, and the kind of unctuous bunkum and mind-boggling blarney we have heard for the last 40 minutes from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
I have more sympathy for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. He was never in power, so he cannot be held responsible. Of course the NDP is completely irresponsible. Its members have never been in power. They are never going to be in power. They can whistle and blow through their blow-holes until kingdom come; they will never be asked to account for the nonsense they get on with or for the promises they make.
The people of Ontario, sophisticated as they are, know that. That is why they only gained two members in that deluge yesterday. They only swelled their ranks by two. The Liberals are much better at fooling the people of Ontario than is the NDP. The NDP, having no responsibility and never having to be accountable for anything, could only increase its number of members in Ontario by two. That says a great deal for the educational system of Ontario. But the educational system in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is much better because we only have, I think it is, two provincial Members for the Atlantic provinces who represent the NDP. Of course it was a magnificent victory! I remember they had one Member in the Newfoundland House. The election was called last March and they have one Member now, and they declared a great victory. Isn't it marvellous? Last year we had the federal election and they came back with fewer Members than they had before, and that was announced as a great victory. The only Party in history that cheers loudly when it loses Members is the NDP. It is the NDP nirvana, pedal power, the never-never pills which the NDP offers to the people of Cape Breton. The people of Cape Breton are not interested. They are not interersted in never-never solutions from never-never people who will never, never be in power. The NDP is the only group in this House which does not need drugs to suffer from fantasies.
Let us get down to business here. Let us forget the socialist slops and their Marxist mythology, their pseudo solutions, the detritus of dismal ditties from dotty dodos, and get on to some facts here. I will only deal with my own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will not deal with the whole Atlantic area, and I will not deal with just my own district because there is very little done in my district. I am always sacrificing for the other districts down in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what happens in St. John's West. However, in this little list I have here, there are one or two things which are being done, even in St. John's West.
Let us look at this resolution. What a joke! Thank heavens the person who moved it, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker), is now coming back into the House to take his medicine. The resolution reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada, especially with regard to regional industrial developments, fisheries and transportation.
It is a motion moved by a Member of the last administration-he had the gall to move this-an administration which declared war on the Atlantic provinces, which savagely attacked and savaged its own provincial administration in Newfoundland for the last 8 or 10 years, which refused to sign an offshore oil and gas agreement, which tried to grind them down, which went down to Newfoundland and refused to sign agreements in the Confederation Building, the headquarters of the Newfoundland Government. The Liberals said: "You come down and sign them here in the Hotel Newfoundland where we the great, mighty federal Government are". That is the way the Liberals treated Newfoundland, and now they condemn this Government for indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada.
Why do they think they are out on their what-nots? It is because of their indifference and their neglect toward Atlantic Canada and toward the rest of Canada that they are out on their what-nots. I could spell what-not, but it would probably be unparliamentary. It is the only three-letter word which 1 know that might be unparliamentary.
Let me give a little list. The Atlantic Accord-if nothing else was ever done by the administration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Atlantic Canada or in Newfoundland or Labrador, the Atlantic Accord would make up for everything else, everything else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us turn to February 11, 1985, after six or seven years of being bullied by the Government of Canada through the then Minister of Energy Lalonde and the then Minister of Justice who became Minister of Energy, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), the Hon. Member for Shawinigan or Bay Street, which I think is his latest address. He only pitches in here now occasionally on the way to his luxurious law offices on Bay Street in Toronto, because as Minister of Justice he became a member of the Bar of Ontario, and I have become a member of the Bar of Ontario.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.
May 3, 1985


John Carnell Crosbie: I agree. It could be useful later on if I am in the perilous plight of the former Minister of Justice. These are the people who treated Newfoundland so shamefully. There was no agreement under them. It was their way or no way. All of it was to be controlled and dominated by the Government of Canada. Now there is an agreement on joint management of offshore oil and gas. There is a Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board appointed by both, with a chairman selected by both. There is a $300 million Canada-Newfoundland development fund. Does that sound to Hon. Members as if they are being treated with indifference and negligence-a $300 million Canada-Newfoundland development fund to help put in the infrastructure which is needed for petroleum development in Newfoundland? I believe the contribution of the federal Government is $200 million or $250 million.


Bill Rompkey: It is $225 million.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is $225 million of the $300 million fund. It is not a loan, it is a grant. Is this indifference and neglect? Is establishing the principle that revenue sharing shall be on the same basis as it is between Canada and other provinces indifference or neglect toward Atlantic Canada? How can the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate move such a resolution with that background? This one agreement alone means that Newfoundland will be able to establish and collect revenues from offshore oil and gas as though it was under the land in Alberta. Is that indifference and neglect? No, that is being saved from the indifference and neglect of the last seven or eight years.
I would not mind if this resolution had been moved by the NDP. I cannot blame its members for anything. In fact, some of them are perfectly likable. It is just like members of your family-you think they are useless but they are very likable because they are related to you and, after all, you can choose your friends but you cannot choose all the members of your family. That is the way I look upon NDP Members. They are perfectly likable, even though some of them are not all that useful, but we cannot hold them responsible. They have never been in power. They did not grind Newfoundland down. They did not say no to regional development. They did not take away the self-respect of Newfoundlanders. They did not tell Newfoundlanders that they were not as good as other people across the country and, therefore, could not be trusted to look after their own resources.
The NDP has never done that, but the Liberal Party has. The Party which the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate represents has done that. He stood by in this House year after year and let them do it. Now he has the gall, the crass hypocrisy, to move this silly jejune-you see I am bilingual- resolution about indifference and negligence towards Atlantic Canada.
I have to watch the clock. I will have to skip quickly. I cannot go into detail. The Canada-Newfoundland roads agreement to the tune of $180 million was agreed to in March. That
Supply
is to be spent by the federal Government and the Newfoundland Government jointly on the Trans-Canada Highway on roads in Labrador and on the Avalon Peninsula over the next five to six years. That is the biggest roads agreement ever entered into between the two Governments. Is that indifference and neglect, especially with regard to transportation? Is this Member in the real world? Does he not know what is going on around him? When he gets in his car in the Town of Gander, he is right on the Trans-Canada Highway where $180 million will be spent, and he says there is indifference and neglect. What does he want? Is $180 million not enough?
Let me just list a few of the other things that have been done with respect to Newfoundland in seven months.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Minister would care to clarify something. Is he telling us now that Cabinet and Treasury Board have approved $180 million for Newfoundland? I know he announced that during the campaign. Little good it did him, but he announced it during the campaign. Is he telling us that he has Cabinet and Treasury Board approval and a signed agreement to spend $180 million? I just want the record to be straight. I think the record should be set straight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order. That is debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me set the Hon. Member's mind at ease. I have done what he could not do in four or five years. Yes, Treasury Board has approved it. Yes, the Cabinet has approved it. The agreement will be signed in the next couple of weeks. The work will go forward this year. Nothing to it. You just need to have a Government that is interested in helping the province.
I did not want to embarrass the Hon. Member, but now that he has annoyed me, I will. In the pulp and paper agreement, signed December 20, 1984, the federal share will be $38.5 million and the total will be $46.3 million. Of the $180 million highways' agreement, $12 million will come from the federal Government of Canada. That will be the federal contribution. We are only getting started.
Earlier in 1984, as the election date came closer, the federal Government at last signed some agreements-planning, mineral development, Burin Peninsula, rural development, ocean industries, and tourism. Those agreements were signed by the federal Liberal Government after holding off for a year and a half, bullying and punishing and trying to do all it could to damage the Newfoundland Government. They were signed as the election came on in the futile hope they could save some of their seats.


Bill Rompkey: And we did.


John Carnell Crosbie: They saved the hon. gentleman, but he is on a hair's breadth, he is gone the next time. That totals $77.85 million which the federal Government will contribute under those agreements. What about the two agreements that we agreed to in the last seven months? The federal contributions
4400

May 3, 1985
Supply
will total $151 million, double the efforts of that hon. gentleman over the period of his tenure in office.


Bill Rompkey: You have not signed two agreements in the last seven months.


John Carnell Crosbie: I just told the Hon. Member it was approved by Treasury Board and approved by the Cabinet. All we have to do is to list it now and scratch our names on it. We will probably go to Newfoundland to do that so that we can be sure that the hon. gentleman and everybody else will know that it has been done. Is that negligence, neglect or indifference?
I am not sure how much time I have left. I will have to go very rapidly to put the nails into the coffin of this silly resolution, this jejune resolution, this careless resolution, this negligent resolution, this grossly negligent resolution, this conscienceless resolution, this resolution of which the hon. gentleman should be ever ashamed. It is in the same league as the resolution that was moved by Mr. Pearson years ago when the PCs got in for the first time in years and he moved that they get out and turn the Government over to the Liberals. This is the kind of resolution that this is.
Modernization of the Corner Brook mill, the Grand Falls pulp and paper mills, is a $37 million modernization program, with $5.6 million coming from the federal Government. The Marystown offshore service facility, an $11 million agreement, was signed on September 28, 1984. The Cow Head facility near Marystown involves a $7.7 million grant from DRIE. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. There is the freezing of container rates. This motion speaks of indifference and negligence.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let the record show that the Marystown funds came out of the Burin Penninsula fund, which was signed when we were the Government of Canada. Let the record be straight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order, unfortunately.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member does not know the rules. They were never in the House when they were in Government, so he is not familiar with the rules. It is not a point of order. There is the freezing of container rates on Terra Transport where we took action a couple of months ago to see that the container rates were not increased as the CTC directed. We are continuing assistance to the Ace Shipping Company while that proceeds. Is that indifference or neglect? Then there is the St. John's Convention Centre. I know the Hon. Member hates to have anything go near St. John's. We know the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was an enemy of St. John's and anything that came near St. John's. He did everything he could to keep everything away from St. John's. There was the agreement on the St. John's Convention Centre. The cost will be $7 million, of which DRIE is putting in $1.7 million.
There are the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques water supply facilities. The Hon. Member tried to cod the people of
Port aux Basques that they were going to pay for a water supply system, but he did nothing about it. At last, after months of effort, I have $6.5 million from the Government to construct the new water system at Channel-Port aux Basques. Is that indiffernece? Is that neglect? My God, it's a miracle. There was also the combined services building at St. John's airport.
With regard to search and rescue, for years hon. gentlemen opposite were satisfied with inadequate search and rescue facilities on the east coast of Newfoundland. They did nothing. It did not matter what happened, what disaster struck or occurred. They sat on their big red what-nots and did nothing. They think they can pass a resolution here saying that we are showing indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada when we have improved immensely the search and rescue capability in St. John's and for the offshore with a second fixed-wing tracker aircraft, with two long-range DND aircraft and an additional helicopter based in St. John's. I do not have the time to go into all of the capability that has been assembled for offshore search and rescue work in connection with the offshore development. They want us to pass a resolution saying that we showed indifference and negligence. Why should we pass a resolution in the face of one or all the things I have mentioned, much less all of them?
There is the new Challenge '85 program. Yes, there is an unemployment problem in Newfoundland, but the people of Newfoundland know that the NDP is never going to resolve it. NDP Members can go down and look sympathetic and concerned, and I hope they are sympathetic and concerned, but Newfoundlanders know the NDP will never never be doing anything about it. We are attempting to do something about it. We have a Challenge '85 program, not only to give young people jobs in the summer, but to give them experience so that they can have jobs for the rest of their lives, so that they can develop their skills and receive training. We are taking a long-range view, not the short-range political, putrid view that the hon. gentlemen opposite had over their 20 years in office. That is not indifference and negligence, but concern for people, concern for young people. We are starting to take action that will do something about it, not as the jackanapes opposite who did nothing about it.
In Goose Bay, in the hon. gentleman's district, we are going to do something. We are going to save Goose Bay. We are going to revitalize it. The North Warning System is going to help Goose Bay and help the whole of Labrador. There will be a magnificent increase in defence spending in Labrador. The hon. gentleman's Party objects to it, fights against it and quarrels. With regard to the star wars' Member in the first row, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), I say that star wars for him is a knock between the eyes. That will give him star wars. The Hon. Member is objecting to all of this that will help build up Labrador and the Goose Bay air base. He just sits there and lets his colleagues object to that. They object to the three long-range radar stations for the Labrador coast, the Baffin Peninsula area and the other area that will be part of that system. In the next few
May 3, 1985

years, $395 million will be spent in Labrador and along the Baffin Peninsula area. I do not have time to go into the details of it all but there are other plans for the Goose Bay area.
The Hon. Member should come over here to join us. I will make him welcome. He is a decent enough chap. However, his views have been obscured by his years in the Liberal Party. We will make him welcome and I think we can help him along.
There is a Canada Works special allocation of $6 million in connection with needs related to the fisheries. The Placentia Nursing Home will be built in my own district. There will be $18 million spent on a Winter Canada Works Program. At the Memorial University, there will be a grant for work-term students that will help 72 students. In my own district, just over $1 million will be spent to help put up a fine new tourist facility, Governor's Park, in the Salmonier Line. This is the only decent IRDP grant Newfoundland has had since the program started. Is that neglect and indifference?


An Hon. Member:: It's enough.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you want any more punishment, boys?


An Hon. Member:: No, too much.


John Carnell Crosbie: I could go on and on but I am delighted to be here today to speak again about the incipient hypocrisy of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. He should be ashamed of himself and he should, before the end of the afternoon, withdraw this cretinous motion from the House.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, after that I do not know whether I should ask a question or simply make a comment. I was wondering if I did all that the Hon. Minister claims I did.
The Hon. Minister mentioned bullying. I suppose the biggest bully in this Chamber, when it comes to making sure that projects go to his riding, is the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Most people who observe the actions of this Government would believe that Newfoundland stops at the St. John's overpass.
The other day I heard the Minister say that there would be international flights into the City of St. John's. How can the Minister of Justice say that when there is a procedure that must be followed? Having international flights into St. John's must be approved by the CTC, the Customs Department, Transport Canada and ICAO. The Minister knows that, but he publicly states that those international flights that are passing through Gander will pass through the City of St. John's. How can he state publicly to the people of Newfoundland that flights will be taken from the Town of Gander and given to the City of St. John's?
While the Minister is answering that question, perhaps he could tell us how the Atlantic Accord can be such a magnificent document when a section of that Accord indicates that no industrial use will be made of offshore oil in Newfoundland until the industrial capacity of eastern Canada is satisfied?
Supply
This is fine for Petromont in the Speaker's riding. It is certainly fine for the ridings of some other Hon. Members of the House. Perhaps that was the intent of the Accord. However, how does the Minister justify that? It is a good thing that Accord was called the Atlantic Accord because it could not have been called the Newfoundland Accord. Perhaps the Minister could make reference to that.
The Minister spoke of search and rescue helicopters. Do you know where those search and rescue helicopters came from, Mr. Speaker? They came from Gander and are going to the riding of the Hon. Minister. Those helicopters came from the search and rescue facilities based in the Town of Gander in order to serve all of the province. Those facilities were placed there by the former Liberal administration. It is not unusual for this Minister to take those helicopters into his own riding. Now, in order to satisfy his own riding, he is taking the international flights away from Gander without going through the necessary procedures. As far as the hon. gentleman is concerned, Newfoundland stops at the St. John's overpass.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member rose to ask those fuddling questions. He has given me a chance to deal with them.
Let us first deal with the overpass. The Hon. Member is talking in local terms. By that, he means that everything is done in St. John's and nothing happens outside of St. John's. Let us just look at what is taking place. There will be a $180 million Canada-Newfoundland roads agreement. Not one cent of that will be spent in the City of St. John's. It will all be spent on roads in Labrador and the southern Avalon Peninsula. Then there is the modernization of the Corner Brook mill. Is Corner Brook in St. John's? Of course not; it is on the west coast of Newfoundland. The Grand Falls pulp and paper mill will be receiving $33 million. That is in Grand Falls. Marystown will be getting $11 million. Not one cent, one nickel or one dime of that will be going to St. John's. I am the most unselfish son of a gun I have ever come across when it comes to my own district.
The only thing here that is designed specifically for St. John's is the St. John's Convention Centre. That is in St. John's but one cannot have a St. John's Convention Centre if it is not in St. John's. We had to put that in St. John's. After all, it is the capital of Newfoundland and it is the biggest city in Newfoundland. It is called the St. John's Convention Centre so we had to put it in St. John's. It is too bad we could not put it in Gander. However, if it is to be called the St. John's Convention Centre, it has to be put in St. John's. The Newfoundland Government has helped Gander with its convention facilities and has recently given the hotel there help.
The money that would be provided for the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques water supply facilities will not be provided to St. John's. It is going to Channel-Port aux Basques. Where was the Hon. Member when I read this list?
Regarding search and rescue, there was a helicopter moved from Gander to St. John's because the offshore industry is off St. John's, not off Gander. When there is an emergency in the

May 3, 1985
Supply
offshore, the helicopter will be 160 miles closer to the disaster and will be able to get there considerably earlier. That helicopter should have been moved years ago, but the hon. gentleman selfishly kept it in Gander despite the fact that it should have been close to the offshore area. That kind of political willfulness and disregard of the health and safety of people in the offshore has now been stopped.
The North Warning System that will be updated in Goose Bay is not in St. John's. A few of the Canada Works programs will be in St. John's, but the Placentia Nursing Home is not in St. John's. I could go on and on. That deals with that part of the question.
Regarding international flights into Gander, only two or three trans-Atlantic flights that go from Newfoundland to the United Kingdom are being moved. Air Canada now uses Gander despite the fact that the traffic originates in St. John's, the Avalon Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula. The rights of the travelling public have been forgotten. The extra expenses incurred by the 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the travelling public who come from those areas are ignored because of the political willfulness and selfishness of the hon. gentleman. Moving these flights will not harm Gander in the least. The airport in Gander will remain an international airport. No other flights will be moved.
Air Canada wants to operate flights from the St. John's airport because the travelling public originates there. Air Canada wants to save the travelling public many dollars and wants to save them the aggravation of trying to get to Gander where they wait hour after hour to get an international flight to the United Kingdom. Gander will not suffer but, for a change, the travelling public will be taken into consideration. The hon. gentleman's selfish willfulness will no longer prevent us from doing what should have been done, 8, 10 or 12 years ago.
Have 1 dealt with it all? Is there anything else I can deal with that might be on the hon. gentleman's mind? Much will remain where it is. No one in St. John's wants to take anything away from Gander. However, where there is an obvious need for the travelling public to be served so that they can be saved money, time and inconvenience, then surely something should be done. Narrow political parochialism and selfishness should not stop that from being done. I can assure the hon gentleman that Gander is not going to suffer as a result of that action, and as long as I am in the Government of Canada, Gander will not suffer at all.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member I have to say it is a magnificent experience to listen to the Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: It indicates to us how sadly confined he is in the Ministry of Justice. However, I did want to indicate that although I am impressed with the impact of the Newfoundland education system in teaching people how to speak, I am not so impressed with how they teach them to count. At last count
there were six provincial New Democrat Members in Atlantic Canada and growing fast.
I am struck as well by the comment about the New Democrats as a never-never Party. I suppose it is preferable to be accused of never doing anything because you are not in power rather than being accused of never doing anything when you are in power. The Minister should, now that it is eight months since the Cabinet was formed, start to deal with the reality that his Government is in power. It is no longer enough to blame on the past what is happening today in Atlantic Canada. It is important for this Minister to recognize that he is in power, the Government is in power, and it has the potential to act. If it is a choice between being perfectly likable or jejune, or magnificently preposterous, perhaps being perfectly likable is preferable.
The Minister has talked about things increasing in Atlantic Canada. The main thing that has increased in Atlantic Canada since this Government came to power is the unemployment rate, and I think it is time this Government recognized that and did something about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get a question out of what the hon. gentleman said, but we know we are in power. We know that is the reality. Did I not just give a list of the results of our being in power for just one province of Canada, and a small one at that? Yes, we are in power and we are doing something. We are taking a long-term approach. The Challenge '85 program, for which the provinces have been looking for years, will not only give people short-term jobs but will help them in their future careers. That is being in power. We knew the reality of being in power when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) restored VIA Rail services. The people of Canada know the reality that we are in power. The people of Newfoundland know it because they are treated like decent human beings for a change. They get some respect, they are not treated as they were in the old days. They know, because of the Atlantic Accord, that we are in power. We know the reality because we put forward the Atlantic Accord and the Western Accord. The Hon. Member from Alberta knows we are in power and what the reality is because we got the energy problems settled in western Canada. The people in Quebec know we are in power because of the things we have been doing in Quebec.
We know the reality that we are in power, and we are going to take a long-term approach. We know how bad unemployment is. I live in Newfoundland, I have lived there all my life and I intend to continue living there all my life and I know what unemployment is like in Cape Breton. We know it is not easy to beat that. We do not even know if we are going to be able to beat it, but we are going to take a better crack at it than has been taken before because we are going to go at it in a long-term way, not just for the immediate quick fix. That is the kind of approach that we and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) are taking.
Yes, the reality is that we are in power. We know it, the people of Canada know it, and we are not going to forget it. The Member is not going to forget it either because with the
May 3, 1985

kind of caterwauling performance we have had today we can see that they are on the road to ruin and perdition. They are going nowhere if they continue this way over the next four years, so keep it up.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said that the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was a man of humour. He may very well be, but he is not accurate and he does not enjoy stating the facts as they should be. The fact is that what he has said here today is completely inaccurate, not factual, not the truth. I had intended to talk about issues which I thought were of serious concern in Atlantic Canada, but of necessity I have to deal with the points made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
First he says that the Atlantic Accord, if nothing else is done by his Government-and so far nothing else has been done by his Government-would make up for everything else. Well, we may get $200 million a year in a few years' time if the Hibernia project goes ahead. I hope it does. But after all the profits and all the taxes all we may get is $200 million a year. Our deficit now is $300 million. The Hon. Member says the Atlantic Accord is going to make up for everything, and that is the first inaccuracy.
He then went on to name all the agreements which his Government has signed. There has been one agreement signed by that Party since they became the Government of Canada, and that is money we put aside for the Port aux Basques water system. They get Cable TV down in Port aux Basques and Corner Brook, and they know the accuracy of what I am saying now. We met with the Port aux Basques Town Council and the Development Association and agreed to set aside $6.5 million for their water system when we were the Government of Canada. That is the agreement and the only agreement that Party has signed since they became the Government of Canada. Apart from the announcement, not a signed agreement, the $180 million for roads, which we will not see this year because it is too late for the construction season anyway, all other agreements were signed when we were the Government of Canada.
He talked about nothing going into St. John's. The Music School, which agreement we signed when we were the Government, is in St. John's in the Hon. Member's riding. The Fisheries College, $47 million, is in St. John's, in the Hon. Member's riding, and the agreement was signed and it was put there when we were the Government of Canada. There is a convention centre in St. John's. The Minister of Development for Newfoundland cannot deny this because it is a matter of record; we had agreed to that when we were the Government of Canada. So those three projects in St. John's were agreed to and most of the money provided when we were the Government of Canada.
The Hon. Member went through a lot of other agreements such as the Ocean Industries agreement. That was signed when we were the Government of Canada, between January and June of 1984, involving a total of $28 million. There was an agreement on tourism, a total of $14.7 million, signed when
Supply
we were the Government of Canada. A planning agreement worth $4 million was signed when we were the Government. The minerals agreement is worth $21.95 million. We had the Burin Peninsula development agreement-and this is where he plays fast and loose with the fact-and that was signed when we were the Government of Canada, for a total of $28 million. The new mine at St. Lawrence came out of that same fund. This is a matter of record so let us set the record straight and not play fast and loose with the facts.
There was a rural development agreement involving a total of $18.2 million, signed with Newfoundland when we were the Government of Canada. He talked about the pulp and paper agreement, and that also was signed when we were the Government. He may have enlarged it, he may have put some more money into that agreement, but it was signed when we were the Government of Canada.
These are the facts and I do not think the Minister of Justice should be allowed to get away with that nonsense in this House, to get away with trying to fool people and mislead the House and the people of Newfoundland into thinking that his Government has suddenly, out of the blue, done something for our province which had not been done before. That is not the case. I think the people of Newfoundland have shown that they know that was not the case.
This morning the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) talked about the people's knowledge of the Liberal record. In the federal election the people of Newfoundland gave the Liberal Party popular support equivalent to that given to the Liberal Party in the Province of Ontario last night. Three of us sit in this chamber now as living proof that the people of Newfoundland know what the Liberal Government did for them. They returned us here because of that.
The Minister speaks of Goose Bay. They spent $2 million to improve a communication system in Goose Bay that is not going to create one single job there. I wish he had risen today in the House and said that his Government was going to create the NATO training base that we have been asking for. That would create jobs. So far the Government has not created one single job in Goose Bay. It must be done, but it has not done it so far. Do not allow them to mislead the House on that as well.
The Minister talked about search and rescue. He talked about taking a helicopter from Gander and putting it where the need was greatest. Seventy per cent of all the marine accidents along the northeast coast of Newfoundland occur within the range of Gander. The Hon. Member has oil on his mind. He is like Premier Peckford who, during the election campaign, bragged about the agreements that we had signed. The Premier of Newfoundland, who almost lost that election, never mentioned the Atlantic Accord during that election campaign, but he did mention those agreements which were signed. That is a case on which the record must be set straight.
The Hon. Member said the helicopter was taken from Gander and put in St. John's because that is where the traffic is. That is not the case. The traffic is off the northeast coast of

May 3, 1985
Supply
Newfoundland. The Hon. Member is going to rue the day when a tragedy happens in that area and the aircraft is not there to take care of it. I agree that there must be increased capability in St. John's for the oil rigs, but the companies must take their responsibility too. The Government of Canada has a responsibility for the fishing craft as well as for the oil rigs. That is why it should have maintained the helicopter in Gander to do the job that was necessary. It has not put anything new there. It has only re-allocated resources. That is not a step in the right direction.
The Minister spoke about Challenge '85. Nineteen hundred applications have been received in Newfoundland under Challenge '85. Twenty per cent of those are career related. They talk about the great use which the public sector is going to make of this. The public sector is not making use of it and neither are the municipalities. The municipalities are being forced to put money which they do not have into Challenge '85. The municipalities of Newfoundland find themselves very hard pressed indeed.
Under Summer Canada the municipalities were given funds free and clear. Federal funds created jobs for young people. This year the municipalities are being forced to contribute 25 per cent of the cost of creating those summer jobs. As a consequence, there will not be as many jobs as there were last year. I do not believe there will be that many created by the private sector either because small companies in Newfoundland do not have the 50 per cent which is needed under Challenge '85. 1 do not think that Challenge '85 will work out as well as the Hon. Member thinks it will. My main concern is the way in which the Hon. Member has misled the House. I believe that the record must be put straight.
I would like to go on to other things which I think must be done. The Minister did not really address the problem of regional development this morning. We talked about this in relation to the Investment Canada Bill. I have seen nothing so far to tell us that the Government in power has any policy for directing funds or employment to the regions of Canada which are in most need, such as the Atlantic region. I could point to the things which have been done away with. The Atlantic provinces have been seriously affected by that. I would like to read from an editorial in the January 3 Telegraph Journal. It reads:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his deficit-slashing Finance Minister, Michael Wilson, would be well advised to take a second look at any schemes that would scale down Ottawa's involvement in regional economic development in Canada.
In setting out to cut spending, the new Government evidently sees a scenario in which the federal Government would reduce its role in direct stimulation of economic growth in various regions and look to the private sector to help fill the
gap-
But the problem in regions such as the Atlantic Provinces is the private sector's limited ability to generate more growth under present conditions.
Thomas Maxwell, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada, points out quite correctly that Atlantic Canada is a region in which the private sector lacks the resources to fill the inevitable void that would be created if Ottawa were to cut back on its support and assistance.
That is an accurate description of what is happening. While it may be true that there are parts of the country where the
private sector can carry the load, the Atlantic region is not one of them. The Government has not realized that by indiscriminately cutting programs across Canada it has hurt underdeveloped regions where the private sector is not strong enough to stand on its own feet and will not be strong enough unless something is done, and it will not be done quickly. It has not realized that through indiscriminate cutting it has hurt the Atlantic area.
There is a whole list of examples of the kind of thing the Telegraph Journal is talking about in its editorial. For example, there has been a $250 million reduction in PIP grants for the offshore. We have not yet been told what will be put in its place. There has been a $11.7 million reduction in capital expenditures in the fisheries development program. Marketing and the small craft harbours program was cut. There was a reduction in non-profit and co-op housing. That is not simply a matter of housing for people. That means that a lot of small businesses such as construction firms and lumber yards in the Atlantic Provinces will be very severely hurt as a result of that cut-back in housing.
This morning the Minister talked about what he was doing for the Atlantic Provinces. One thing he did was to cut tourism out of the IRDP program altogether. I think that tourism is going to be a sunrise industry in the Atlantic Provinces and it cannot now qualify for any grants under the Industrial Regional Development Program. There is a water slide in a town in my constituency which is attracting a great many tourists. It is a good, imaginative idea of a small businessman that is working well. It is making money and attracting people to that area. That kind of thing can no longer be done because tourism is no longer eligible under the IRDP.
Another thing which has been cut is ferry service. There are ferries along the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the coast of Labrador, and the south coast that have been cut. All of these things will have a very severe impact in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland. We do not have a healthy private sector which can take up the slack. Perhaps Toronto, parts of Alberta and parts of British Columbia can do that, but that type of indiscriminate cutting will hurt people in the Atlantic provinces where the economy is not strong enough to stand on its own two feet. That is starting to happen now. The Atlantic Accord will not take up the slack.
What will we do in Newfoundland for the next five or ten years until all the money rolls in from the oil? How do we feed our people and get jobs in the meantime? What is the Government going to do in regional economic policy? That is a serious question which deserves to be answered but has not yet been answered. I hope there are some answers in the Budget when it comes down.
I have some questions for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I have some positive suggestions of things that could be done. Let me tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) what can be done in Goose Bay. I hope he will take it up with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). Let us not talk about star wars because that will not create jobs. Let us talk about a NATO training base where the Government could
May 3, 1985

make money and attract foreign companies to Goose Bay, as it is doing now, so the Government of Canada would make money. They would be paying guests in our country. I suggest that a proposal for a NATO training base in Goose Bay would not only keep our NATO commitment-


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you do it?


Bill Rompkey: We did it. We signed an agreement with the West Germans and with the British. We have the Americans there. We started it, you go farther and create a NATO training base in Goose Bay. If we had stayed long enough, we would have done more.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have the Norwegians.


Bill Rompkey: That is one positive suggestion I can give the Government of Canada. They would help that region and bring new foreign dollars into the country.
The second thing the Government of Canada could do is to set up in northern Newfoundland and Labrador a northern fishery development corporation. The Minister of Justice very blithely says, "If nothing else is done, the Atlantic Accord will make up for everything". I suggest he tell that to people along the Labrador coast. That is absolute, utter nonsense. There will be no immediate pay-off to the people in that area.
What should happen is an improvement to fisheries conditions in that area. A northern fishery development corporation should be set up.
However, let me say what the Government did. We had set aside $15 million for the northern fisheries development corporation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where was it when we needed it?


Bill Rompkey: The Minister of Fisheries answered-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is poppycock.


Bill Rompkey: It is on the record. It is in Hansard.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not on the record.


Bill Rompkey: He answered a question in the House and admitted that the $15 million that we had put aside-


John Carnell Crosbie: You left a $34 billion deficit. That is what you left.


Bill Rompkey: You read Hansard.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is this $15 million?


Bill Rompkey: It is all there, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: A $34 billion deficit. You left nothing but IOUs and a $200 billion debt.
Supply


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice had his chance-pitiful as it was-but he had it. However, those are the facts.
If the Government really wants to do something for the people in that area, it should put the money back and set up that northern fishery development corporation and give those people a chance. Oil will not be the saviour of the people along the Labrador coast.
Although we have heard that nonsense, I have explained some of the needs that we have. This is a serious motion because the main thrust of the Government so far has been to emphasize the private sector. In emphasizing the private sector and trying to deal with the financial situation in this country, the Government has made certain cuts in programs. I submit that while cuts in certain parts of the country may be realistic, that approach in other parts of the country where the infrastructure and economy are not healthy and the private sector is not strong can be disastrous. It will not create jobs but will lose jobs.
I am looking forward to seeing a realistic and positive approach to the Atlantic area in the upcoming Budget because we have not seen it so far.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? If not, we will resume debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather unusual for any Member to be sandwiched between two prominent Newfoundlanders, especially in an important debate such as this. I am not sure precisely how I will fare.
However, at the outset, having listened to the Hon. Member and others, I suggest that between the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), they have pretty well discredited this motion. This motion is also discredited by the fact that for most of the time this afternoon members of the Opposition who sponsored it have only had one Member in the House, sometimes two. That is almost as bad as the nine whom they mustered for the very good vote on that famous motion last Friday.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let's have a vote.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is a very important motion, notwithstanding the fact that it is inaccurate. I think it provides an opportunity to discuss some very important issues as they relate to the Atlantic Provinces.
I came to this place in 1968. At that time, one of the most important issues affecting Canada was the issue of regional disparity. As a matter of fact, I think it was perhaps one of the more important issues in the election campaign of 1968. I point that out only because it is still an issue in Canada today. The fact that the Liberal Party has sponsored this motion today really reflects on 16 years of absolute failure and economic stupidity. There has been no change. In fact, things have deteriorated.

May 3, 1985
Supply
In the seven or eight months that we have been in office, the Liberals have suddenly discovered the problems in Atlantic Canada and want to correct them overnight. It will not be done that easily, Mr. Speaker. It is a difficult task because first we must clean up the mess. We took over Government under the burden of crippling interest rates, a burdensome debt, a lack of business and investor confidence and a dollar that was under attack. There was a continuation of the regional disparities that were the highlight of the election campaign of 1968.
In 1968, when the Liberals were elected to office, the unemployment rate was 4.5 per cent, or 350,000 people. After 16 years it was 11.5 per cent, or 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. That cannot be blamed on this Conservative Government. We were paying out in unemployment insurance benefits in the order of $400 million in 1968. It is probably in the vicinity of $11 billion today. The blame for that cannot be laid at the doorstep of the Conservative Government.
The Liberal Government had pork-barrel policies rather than long-term policies that would provide long-term growth, stability and the production of wealth. The Liberals' policy was to throw money and hope for the best. They failed to recognize that there are some very basic regional strengths in all parts of the country.
The Atlantic region is no exception. Rather than developing those regional strengths and turning them into economic opportunities in order to create growth and jobs, rather than stimulating the entrepreneurial spirit and encouraging private enterprise and the creative spirit within the people of Atlantic Canada, the Liberals killed it.
What we are dealing with here is a legacy of failure on the part of the administration of the Party that is sponsoring this motion. They failed to provide a climate that was conducive to economic growth and job creation.
They failed to provide a climate conducive to taking advantage of that region's natural strength. Just look at the mess that the fishery industry is in. Can the Liberals blame Conservative Government for that? There is failure in forestry, there is failure in agriculture and there is failure in tourism. The potential for tourism in Atlantic Canada is enormous. I am sure that that great region could have contributed enormously to reducing the $2 billion tourism trade deficit with which we are now burdened.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion outlined a number of programs and initiatives that we are taking. The new direction that has been proposed in the economic statement in November is a very important signal not only to Atlantic Canada but to all of Canada. Clearly, if we are realistic about our situation today, I believe that as an exporting nation we will be judged by our ability to compete in the global market-place in the 1980s and 1990s. That is the reality we must face.
This country must export to survive. It cannot continue to support our life-style and standard of living without exporting our products to the extent we have in the past and without
regaining our fair share of the market-place which we have lost over the last 15 years.
A key component to achieving that performance is our ability to maintain an efficient, responsive and productive transportation system. I as Minister of Transport and on behalf of my Government, of which I am proud to be a member, view transportation as an essential and vital tool for economic development, particularly in the Atlantic region. In the short time we have been in office we can point to a number of initiatives we have embarked upon which illustrate that we are serious about that. The most obvious one is the reinstatement of the Atlantic rail passenger service, which will begin on June 1. This Government recognizes the importance of rail passenger service not only in terms of enhancing the economic potential of the region, but also as a unifying force across this country. Restoring the Atlantic Service really represents a fulfilment of a major commitment to Atlantic Canada, not to mention the jobs that will be created directly and indirectly, something in the order of 1,400 to 2,000.
The people of the Maritimes and the people of Canada have made it very clear they want an efficient, reliable rail passenger service. We are going to do whatever we can to satisfy that desire. We are confident that the people of Canada will respond.
We have also established the CN Marine Corporation as a separate Crown corporation. We now have a separate Crown corporation headquartered in Moncton, with corporate offices both in Charlottetown and in St. John's, that will ensure he maximum responsiveness to the region it serves. I know the service which CN Marine provides. It is very important. I know there has been some criticism about the rationalization that is taking place. Here again we must face the reality that we have to keep our unit costs down. We must acquire new vessels, a little larger, more modern, and the latest technology that will provide faster service and improve productivity. There may very well be some reductions in service in terms of frequency because we cannot have it both ways. There is a certain optimum that must be achieved. We are trying to do that. We hope that having CN Marine headquartered and managed out of the Atlantic region will enable it to respond to the realities and the needs of the people in the region.
The subsidization of freight costs to allow Atlantic producers better access to the important markets is really a channel of assistance that is available to the federal Government. In Atlantic Canada there are two Acts which are very important. These are the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. Prior to our coming into office the usefulness of these two Acts was seriously questioned and undermined as those two very important proposals were reviewed.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of that period of time there was a fair amount of uncertainty created in the minds of the people in the Atlantic region. This serves to destabilize the economy and create doubt in the minds of the
May 3, 1985

entrepreneurs who may want to invest. During that period of time uncertainty existed and I think it was unfortunate. We made it very clear during the course of the election campaign that we would continue, maintain and, if necessary, enhance the Maritime Freight Rate Subsidy Assistance Program, and we would work together in co-operation with all interested parties and the provinces to ensure that the money being spent would provide the maximum benefit to all concerned. In other words, if there are more effective ways of administering and applying the programs, we would be prepared and willing to adopt those changes.
My Parliamentary Secretary announced on December 11 that some 10 new commodities were added to the list of eligible products to be allocated under a selective transportation subsidy. That does not suggest that we are being indifferent or negligent toward the Atlantic region.
Federal transportation expenditures in Atlantic Canada for fiscal 1984-85 are forecast at some $755 million. This compares with a national outlay of some $4.4 billion. Expressed in per capita dollars, this represents $329 for every person in Atlantic Canada as compared to a Canadian average of $176. That hardly suggests that this Government is being indifferent or negligent toward the Atlantic region. These figures illustrate a very significant federal contribution to the transportation requirements of the Atlantic provinces.
I am sure there are those who would say there should be more. Yes, in some areas perhaps there should be more, but we are limited by the legacy of debt we have inherited. We must be very careful and prudent in the way in which we handle our resources. That does not mean to say we will ignore the Atlantic region. As a matter of fact, the kind of new transportation policy initiatives upon which we are embarking will provide greater competition, lower freight rates, better service, new types of innovative services and I think will auger very well for the development of the tremendous potential and opportunities that exist in Atlantic Canada.
Clearly the issue of freight rates and the enormous cost that transportation loads on to the delivered product is something we have to take into consideration. The transportation cost component of the products we export is major. We have to try to reduce the unit costs of transportation in every way possible. We are looking at ways and means of injecting more competition both in the inter and the intra-modal systems to ensure that we can reduce that unit cost of transportation, encourage better utilization of the system, and encourage greater flexibility and greater innovation, thereby bringing about lower prices.
Ports are clearly part and parcel of this whole concept of inter-modal transportation. They cannot be treated in isolation. Rather, the emphasis must be on increased flexibility and efficiency through inter-modal relationships which have to be expressed through a state of the art technology.
Recently we announced the extension of the $1.5 million regional air carrier subsidy to December 31 to support route services including Halifax, Charlottetown, Iles-de-la-Made-leine and services to Goose Bay and Labrador from Halifax. These are important and necessary support programs to
Supply
provide services to the people in those areas. The thrust of our efforts will be further to develop affordable air service through the promotion of regulatory reform. Our goal is to establish a framework within which a strong, healthy and competitive industry can provide expanded and affordable air services for all Canadians, particularly Canadians in the Atlantic region.
The national air carriers, Canadian Pacific and Air Canada, are responding to our initiatives by looking at ways and means to improve international service and domestic service through co-operation with local regional carriers and the commuter type services. I must say that in Atlantic Canada, contrary to what the Member who preceded me stated, there is a great deal of interest emanating from the private sector, the Canadian entrepreneur, in starting local regional air carriers.
Major airport development has been initiated at St. John's, Newfoundland in the amount of $3.3 million; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island in the amount of $4.7 million; and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia in the amount of $6 million. I could go on. Much work has gone into preparing St. Stephen, New Brunswick for the Canadian Owner and Pilot's Association convention at which pilots from across Canada and the United States will fly into St. Stephen. In addition, some $13 million for the Labrador air strip program has been allocated for this year. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) will know that the federal Government is providing $3 million for the construction and upgrading of air service in Fogo Island in his riding.
There are other things, and I could go on and on but I see that my time has almost expired. I have some press releases here. Let us look at coast guard shipbuilding. There is one type, 1100, navaids light icebreaker in the amount of $54 million; 1 type, 1050, offshore supply vessel in the amount of $25 million; and 2 type 800 coastal navaids vessels in the amount of $3.3 million. I could go on and on. CN Marine has advised that a refit budget of some $6 million will be spent on Atlantic region dockyards in the course of this year. In a short period of time there will be new orders for 38,000 tons of rail submitted to SYSCO, which will again assist in that region.
This motion is a lie. It is full of bunk. I personally take exception to it because I have a very intense and profound interest in Atlantic Canada. Of all the regions I have visited since becoming Minister, I have been in the Atlantic region more often than in any other region, with the exception of my home region, Alberta.
I want to continue to work with the good people of Atlantic Canada and with Hon. Members opposite. I know that behind the rhetoric and the flimflam there is a genuine interest in what they are saying. However, I assure them that we are not ignoring the Atlantic region or overlooking its concerns. 1 think together we can provide services, particularly in the transportation sector, which will be affordable, efficient, reliable, and will help in boosting the economic fortunes and in

May 3, 1985
Supply
building the economic infrastructure which is so important not only to Atlantic Canada but indeed to the entire country.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, for the record, to observe that we have now listened to speakers on the government side of the House talk about what is in the present budgets or what the present Government is doing. Unfortunately, they did not compare it to what was in the original budgets, what was spent last year and what was spent the year before.
I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will not be bullied by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in trying to force the CTC or his Department to move international flights to the Hon. Member's riding. I hope he will not be bullied into taking an action which will not be a very wise one. However, returning to the speech of the Minister of Transport, he made a correct reference to tourism and its importance in Altantic Canada.
Recently I noted what the Conservative Party talked about in its transportation commitment made in Halifax on August 2, 1984. It indicated that a Progressive Conservative Government would conduct regular reviews of CN Marine ferry rates to guarantee that they were equitable and not damaging to the competitiveness of local industries, with particular reference to tourism.
The Hon. Minister was correct, but what did he do? What did the Government do? Under ferry services, it is saving $16.1 million. That amount has been cut. How will that be achieved? It will be achieved from selective increased cost recovery and from operating efficiencies in restructuring the coastal and gulf services. The fact of the matter is that under the Minister of Transport the ferry rates have skyrocketed so that people will not want to travel by ferry boat. This will have a damaging effect upon the tourism industry.
What about CN Marine? Yes, the Minister talks about restructuring, but what for? The financial statement indicates a saving of $21.5 million. Then he talked about all he was doing for the Coast Guard. If we look at the financial statement we see that he is saving $51.6 million by cutting out capital projects relating to Coast Guard aids to navigation and vessels. In fact, that is all contained in the financial statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).
It is fine for Ministers to talk about what they are spending this year, but when we see what they have cut we see why it is so devastating to Atlantic Canada. Every cut announced by the Department impacts more in the Atlantic region than in any other part of Canada. The reviews which are under way to produce further cuts will impact more in Atlantic Canada than in any other region of Canada. If the Minister wants to make a comment, perhaps he could comment on the cuts which he has made in his Department, not on his normal budgetary expenditures.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will address a couple of the points which the Hon. Member has made. I am sure that the modest increase in ferry rates will not be crippling, as the Hon. Member suggested. As a matter of fact, in some cases
ferry rates have been reduced. I hope he will take notice of that.
Everyone in the House should know that the cost recovery for the provision of ferry services is below 25 per cent. It is 18 per cent to 19 per cent. I am sure Atlantic Canadians, like all Canadians, are not objecting to paying their fair share. We have also said during the course of this exercise that we have tried to generate an additional 15 percentage points of revenue through the combination of efficiencies, cutting out waste and increasing ferry rates. However, some, I repeat, have been reduced; some have gone up 7 per cent or 8 per cent. This was certainly not crippling, and this was done in consultation with the provinces. We worked it out together, and the Hon. Member will find that the impact is not as he suggested.
With regard to the other points, I do not think anyone should apologize for cutting out waste, inefficiency and fat in the system. That is precisely what we have been trying to do. We are trying to get a more effective, more efficient, more responsive and more productive system. It is part and parcel of our total effort to put in place a system which will produce goods and services at the lowest possible cost. That is the name of the game.
I think the Hon. Member would be the first to agree that the six and five program, which suppressed any increases, simply delayed the inevitable. Regardless of what Government took office, this issue had to be addressed.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister as well. I take what he said today about his interest in the Atlantic area to be accurate, and I believe it. As I told him in committee yesterday, the leading journals are saying that he is a major player in Cabinet, has the ear of the Prime Minister Mr. Mulroney), and is an effective Cabinet Minister who has taken charge of his Department and is running it. I believe what the leading journals are saying, and I take it to be accurate. Given those facts, let me ask him about the Newfoundland railway which he mentioned. He knows that some years ago a five-year program of $77 million was allocated to the Newfoundland railway to do some upgrading, some containerization, and so on. That is now coming to an end. As a matter of fact, a report was to have been submitted to Government last spring. I have not seen that report, but I want to ask him about the future of the railway, given the moratorium that was placed on the increase in rates. Clearly that is until such time as there is an appeal of the CTC decision. As soon as that appeal is resolved, presumably something will happen; those rates will go up. At that point we will get into the future plan as to multi-modal operations in Newfoundland.
What will be the future of the railway? What will be the future of sea transport? What will be the future of air transport? Could the minister give us a forecast now? Can he tell the Chamber and the people of Newfoundland what he sees ahead for the Newfoundland railway? Once that funding comes to an end, will there be further funding? Will there be further containerization? Does he have a positive view about the Newfoundland railway? Will there be a healthy railway in Newfoundland in the future?
May 3, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is quite a question, Mr. Speaker. Do I have a positive view of the railroad? It was this Government and I in 1979 who put together the five-year plan that saved the railroad. That is why they have a railroad today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The matter is under review. There is no question about it. It is a serious question. The Hon. Member accurately pointed out the conflicting interests, whether we would have a variety of modes of transportation, and to what extent we would support them. At the present time the federal Government is supporting all modes of transportation-water, rail and air. The five-year program has expired. It will be reviewed in some fashion. All these things are being taken into consideration, having regard to the fact that it has been found that rail freight rates are non-compensatory and in violation of the National Transportation Act. It is a reality with which we have to deal.
Also, there is the reality that as long as rates stay low, we need to be supporting to a very significant extent water shipments as well as rail shipments. We view the railway as an important mode of transportation for Newfoundland. Otherwise, we would not have put together a salvaging package in 1979. We are working toward achieving that as well at a future period of time.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, at first I was not sure whether I would be speaking on this motion of the Liberals which reads:
That this House condemns the Government for its indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada, especially with regard to regional industrial development, fisheries and transportation.
Not being a specialist in regional development, fisheries and transportation, and not having very much personal familiarity with the Atlantic provinces, I thought perhaps I would just listen. However, although my acquaintance with the Atlantic provinces is limited to having visited some friends in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia two or three times and having visited my son in Newfoundland two or three times, it is not that on which I am relying. I want to speak today on the question of housing. Although not a major issue raised in the motion, I believe it is a matter to be considered.
The Minister spoke this morning, as did the Minister from St. John's, whining as they usually do about all the problems they inherited from the previous Government. It was understandable hearing that in November, but we have had November, December, January, February, March, April and now May. It is becoming less and less credible to have them blame all the things they are not doing on the previous Government. It is particularly inappropriate in the matter of the housing program.
Last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who was then Leader of the Opposition, bragged about his Party's policy in the matter of co-op housing. He sent letters to all
Supply
kinds of people. This is the sort of thing he said during the election campaign, although he started before the campaign:
There are few matters of more importance to people than adequate housing for themselves and their families.
The Prime Minister has a genius for making a pompous statement about the obvious, such as that today is Friday. He said:
The Progressive Conservative Party finds it inexcusable that the Liberal Government should cut back the funds for the co-operative housing program. That they would do so without consideration for the thousands of Canadians who rely upon co-operatives for their shelter illustrates the emptiness of the Liberal rhetoric on their concern for social issues.
He does not just blast the Liberals. He went on to say:
Our Party is sensitive to the needs of Canadians and believes that co-operatives are a necessary element of any housing program. They provide Canadians who otherwise would not be able to afford their own homes with independence, security and a sense of community spirit.
He winds up the paragraph by saying:
Co-operative housing will continue to have a priority in Progressive Conservative policy for housing.
That is a lot of balderdash. A lot of people suspected it at the time. Now the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have proved it. The co-operative program was slashed unjustifiably by the previous Government. It has been further slashed in direct violation of those promises by the present Government. People who are in difficulty over their housing are left to fend for themselves by this Government, as by the previous Government.
One matter that has come to my attention since I undertook the housing portfolio for my Party is the situation in Labrador City as a result of the massive lay-offs there by the Iron Ore Company. I have here an October 1983 task force report. It was a task force of the Newfoundland Legislature to inquire into the socio-economic problems in Labrador west. It refers to the extremely difficult situation for individuals in that community left by the long-term shut-down of the Iron Ore Company operation there. The provincial Government task force stated:
Financing for houses has been by conventional mortgages, most of which are insured either through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or through a private mortgage insurance company. It is significant that borrowers did not seem to know at the time of borrowing by whom they were insured and what the future implications would be if they failed to meet their payments. As will be clear from this report, private sector mortgage insurance, with its right to sue, is seriously deficient for remote, one-industry towns.
There are other references to that problem, but I will jump to page 16 in which the report makes these points:
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the several hundred workers who permanently lost their jobs in Schefferville-
Schefferville was owned by the same company, the Iron Ore Company of Canada.
-received reasonable financial indemnification, but the one thousand or so workers who permanently have lost their jobs in Labrador City have received nothing comparable. The difference is glaring, and the Government should try to influence the companies-
That is the provincial Government and the Iron Ore Company of which the Prime Minister was the head until recently. He went on:

May 3, 1985
Supply
-at least to provide free rail transportation to Sept-lles for employees and their belongings, including mobile homes.
I understand that the provincial Government of Newfoundland has since that date provided mobility grants in the amount of $3,000 to help workers move out of that disaster area. It is very interesting that the man who has undertaken to lead this country and look after the interests of all parts of the country, including Newfoundland, the Prime Minister, treated Labrador City so very differently from the way he treated Schefferville. Of course, he has not told us the reason, but we can guess the reason by looking at the electoral boundaries. He treated people in Schefferville very well because they were his voters. He and his company did nothing for those in Labrador City. Of course, they were not obliged to do anything because they were not the voters of the Prime Minister. They had no opportunity to vote against him individually.
It goes beyond that. Newfoundland has had a modest cooperative housing program which has grown in the last few years. Recently there were at least three co-operatives which were encouraged by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to expect that they would be getting co-op allocations. The Kilbride, Heritage and Confederation Co-operatives are all in St. John's. These co-ops are not a big deal by CMHC standards, only 51 units all together, but they matter a lot to the people who put their volunteer time into those programs. Not only the Prime Minister and not only the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-who made a fulsome speech in Toronto last spring on behalf of his Party lauding the co-op program-but everybody, except for the private building industry, has recognized the value of co-operative enterprise. It is a small part of the economy and a small part of the housing sector. However, it does enlist volunteer energies in producing the best sort of housing available within the cost allowed by CMHC. That has the effect not only of welding people together in the creation of a co-op, but also of ensuring the durability in the quality of the building.
The people who are involved in co-ops do not want jerry-built buildings, because they are going to live in them and maintain them. It has been shown that co-op homes are generally of better quality and better maintained than rental housing for the same price. Of course, people who can afford private homes are in a different class in every sense, but here we are speaking of people who cannot buy their own homes and for whom home ownership is most easily available through the shared ownership of co-op housing.
For a dozen years, co-op housing has been growing in every province of Canada. It has been found beneficial by everyone except the private builders and those politicians who see their interests as being in association with those of private builders. There has recently been a sharp downturn in the co-op housing program. The social housing program from which 2,500 units were cut last year by the Liberal Minister has had another 2,500 units cut this year. Most of those cuts appear to be cuts in the co-op program.
In Halifax, there were two co-op projects that had been told they had priority. They had been reviewed, their performance was good and their plans were good. Seaview Housing Co-op, which was formerly known as Basinview, and Flip-Flop Housing Co-op had been told that they had priority. A couple of days ago, these projects were cancelled. The Crossroads Co-op project was also cancelled. In fact, there are no co-op units allocated for Newfoundland any longer.
I have not been able to find out about the complete co-op situation in Halifax and Nova Scotia because the present Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who is responsible for housing, although his Department pumps out a great deal of paper, pumps out almost no information about what he is doing. Members of his staff are experts at not answering questions on the telephone. We have to pick this information up piece by piece from different parts of the country.
There are hundreds of other co-op projects across the country that have also been cut in the same unjustifiable way under the present Minister. I will not go into those today because the other examples of this did not occur in the Atlantic provinces.
The policy of the Government toward housing in the Atlantic provinces cannot be justified. It cannot be defended on the grounds that it inherited the problem from its predecessor. We are talking about cuts made to a proven, useful program by a Government which, in its election campaign, promised not to make those cuts. Even this fall, the present Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing said that he did not intend to cut back the allocations for public housing. A cut of $9 billion was made in his budget, but he said that that would not be reflected in the allocations to housing but would somehow be made by shaving production costs. That particular bit of fantasy has now been blown away by the Minister's actual decision to cut the allocations.
I would like to comment on the human problems caused by these few examples to which I have referred. I have here a letter from Ron Cromwell, a Halifax alderman, addressed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing. He writes:
1 am writing to ask that if at all possible, you will do everything in your power to assist the Seaview Housing Co-op in their request for funding. This Co-op has been doing a great job and are ready to bring more affordable housing to our area, to help counter the already low vacancy rate that already exists.
I have a clipping from the Halifax newspaper referring to the extremely low vacancy rate in Halifax of 0.5 per cent. An article in The Daily News of Wednesday, May 1, reads as follows:
The number of publicly funded co-operative housing units to be built in the Halifax metro area has been slashed by 70 per cent for 1985.
As well, a new practice that has been introduced by the Government is that when programs are cut, as little notice as possible is given. The article continues:
The huge cuts-which went unannounced for the first time-by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, comes in the midst of a desperate need for more housing.
The article goes on to refer to provincial housing Minister Mike Laffin who, I presume, is of the same political persua-
May 3, 1985

sion as this Government. The Government can hardly laugh off the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia as it tries to laugh off the NDP Governments of western Canada. The article continues:
Yesterday provincial Housing Minister Mike Laffin pleaded with his federal counterpart Bill McKnight of CMHC for more co-op housing in Nova Scotia.
Since assuming power McKnight has implemented a stringent program called Assessed Cost Effectiveness (ACE) which has reduced the number of co-op housing units built in Nova Scotia.
The Minister can give this program a fancy title like Assessed Cost Effectiveness, but he has never explained it to those who have inquired. As far as we can find out, through that program the Minister simply says: "I like him; 1 do not like him". He obviously does not like the co-op people in eastern Canada.
The article to which I had referred goes on to read:
Nova Scotia MPs were the first to learn of the 1985 co-op cuts, last Friday.
I have a letter here from the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes) dated December 4, 1984, which is when he began to realize that there was a problem. The letter reads:
I have been advised by the Minister responsible for CMHC that they are not able to accede to your request for remedial work with regard to your most recent proposal.
I have difficulty in accepting the merit of the decision in view of the tremendous demand for housing in Halifax but accept that the Government has established priorities and apparently they lean towards new construction.
That letter was written on December 4. On December 7, a letter was written to the Basinview Housing Co-op in care of Access Housing Services. As I mentioned, the Basinview Housing Co-op is now called the Seaview Housing Co-op. This letter was written by Michael W. Tucker, Program Manager of the Social Housing Department, CMHC. The letter reads in part:
Inasmuch as your proposal was considered to be in a priority area this year, we are prepared to recognize that priority for purposes of reviewing 1985 proposals. It is suggested you modify your submission based on a new site, bearing in mind that a peninsula of Halifax location is preferred, but in any case you should locate within the metropolitan area.
Also, it goes without saying that all usual conditions of application approval must be met.
In December, the co-op was asked to make some changes and told that its priority continued because of the work that had already been done. Next there is a letter dated April 30, 1985, from the City of Halifax Non-Profit Housing Society, signed by Nancy Wooden, Chairman, and C. Mellett, Consultant, to the Hon. Minister of Labour regarding the 1985 unit allocations for the Seaview Housing Co-operative. The letter reads:
Our Society was extremely distressed to hear that the Seaview Housing Co-operative did not receive funding allocations under the 1985 announced allocations. As you are very aware the housing situation in Halifax has been at crisis proportions for the last four years with vacancy rates at 0.5% and even more severe affordability problems.
The writers of the letter address specifically the changes sought by CMHC four months previous to that.
Supply
As to the criteria for selection, the Non-Profit Housing Society has worked with Seaview Co-Operative as its priority number one for co-operative development in Halifax. That is what CMHC asked for. To date, they have agreed to lease land on the peninsula of Halifax to the co-op as asked for by CMHC; put considerable time and money into a design competition to ensure an appropriate design for the area; and provided staff time to assist in the development of the co-op. Volunteer time and money have been spent with the encouragement of CMHC to produce housing in an area where it is desperately needed, yet CMHC, without any explanation or warning, has cut them off. But they have asked in the letter that the Minister review the process of evaluating co-operative projects as they relate to affordable housing being developed in major centres close to jobs and services. They are asking for a country-wide review. They have also said that 1985 is the year in which CMHC should acknowledge the critical and ongoing shortage of affordable housing in Halifax by increasing immediately the unit allocations to mainland Nova Scotia by 25 units. That is very reasonable, Mr. Speaker. They are asking that the regional office be directed to use those 25 units within the municipal limits of the City of Halifax by funding the Seaview Housing Co-operative.
They have followed the directions of CMHC, but CMHC cut them off. I would say that that as well justifies the accusation of neglect. I would say that it justifies the accusation of contempt by this Government for the people of Halifax, as the actions I mentioned before constitute contempt for the people of Newfoundland in regard to housing programs. I am very sorry that that is so and I hope the Government will reconsider its approach in this matter.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to add my comments to those already made on the following Opposition motion:
That this House condemns the Government for its indifference and negligence toward Atlantic Canada, especially with regard to regional industrial development, fisheries and transportation.

I was particularly interested in listening to a number of Ministers making comments and being paticularly pleased with the roles they are playing in our society and the changes they are effecting. They talked about this being a new era of co-operation and harmony which they have demonstrated through ongoing consultation across this land. If those ongoing consultations do end with a positive, constructive and new place for the Atlantic Provinces in the growth and development of this country, then I for one, as will all members of my Party, be more than pleased. Certainly I would be more than ready to give the benefit of the doubt to any initiative which would improve the lot of Atlantic Canadians. However, there are so many election promises not being met and the prose and rhetoric continues in such a way that I have some serious concerns. I hope those concerns prove to be unfounded.

May 3, 1985
Supply
I must bring to the attention of members of the Government the list of areas in which they have effected cuts which have direct impact on Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a 1.8 cent per litre increase in gasoline tax and I do not think the people of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick are particularly happy about that, nor is anyone else in the rest of Canada. The reduction in the fisheries development program amounted to $11.7 million. We just heard about overfishing in that area and the impact that has on the canneries and fish plants in the Atlantic region. The reduction in non-profit and co-operative housing was very well addressed by the Member from the NDP. He brought to our attention the cut in social and co-operative housing, an important area. That is only to the tune of $9.6 million. We have had a 25 per cent cut in the RRAP program regarding home renovation to the tune of $29.4 million. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion was cut to the tune of $200 million. This impacts on the private sector, particularly in the Atlantic region, where it is so important.
Grants to local groups in support of cultural activities have been cut by $9.8 million. Graduates of job training programs have had their unemployment insurance program extensions cut from six to three weeks, a cost factor of $5.8 million. This impacts very dramatically in that area of our country where the unemployment rates are extremely high and unemployment insurance is often the only dollar brought into the home. The Canada Student Loans program is held at the current level of $5 million. When you look at the needs of youth and see the cuts in that area, that is rather dramatic. CN Marine ferry services on the East Coast have been cut by $37.6 million. I would say that has a rather severe impact on that area. The general industrial training program involved 42,000 people being placed in job training programs last year. It assists employers to improve job training skills, but here we have seen a cut of $40 million. The Summer Canada program for students was cut by $85 million; its reinstatement under a new name I will address in a few moments. The COSP program was cut by $95 million, and CHIP was cut by $84 million. Every one of these cuts impacts on the people of the Atlantic region. The Forest Research Centre in Corner Brook was cut by $16 million and I think that is a particularly mean cut which demonstrates a lack of open-heartedness and open spirit.
New development services in Parks Canada will be reduced by $19.5 million. Capital expenditures at Fisheries and Oceans will be cut by $18.1 million. I am wondering which one of those Ministers and which one of the back-benchers is looking after the interests of Atlantic Canada. The dredging program will be cut by $3.6 million. Coast Guard aids to navigation and contributions to community services is cut by $51.6 million. The litany goes on. Increased fees for food inspection, quality assurance, et cetera, amount to $32 million. User fees for Parks Canada and fees for weather information have been introduced to the tune of $10.5 million. Charges for berthage fees for fishermen, $6.3 million. Increased parking rates at
airports, higher rental rates for airport land and buildings, new tariff structures for government wharfs, increased charges for marine-related services, further savings from reduced service levels for marine activities and airport maintenance, $23.5 million. Airport transport and cargo taxes, 8 per cent to 9 per cent on domestic flights, and a new cargo tax to be introduced at a cost of $34.6 million. This tax will impact very heavily in that area of our country. There was a crackdown on collecting money owed to the Government, especially from those who owe money to Revenue Canada. Here we have had a cut-back of $440 million or a saving, depending on how the Government wishes to look at it, yet 330 new tax collectors have been employed to the tune of $10 million.
There is something very wrong when you hear a Government speaking in such glowing terms about what it has done and then you listen to this litany of cuts which have impacted so negatively. If these cuts are, as one of the Ministers put it, to cut out the fat, improve where we are inefficient, cut back programs which are redundant, and effect changes where we have had unnecessary expenditures, if it is to find new ways in which to work, then I say, fine, good, proceed. But that has not been demonstrated and it is not the view that we have at the moment.
One of the areas in which I have a particular interest is that of youth.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, young people today are an incredibly important natural resource for this country. Their technical or academic training is an investment, not only in their own future but in that of the entire country. The challenge we are facing today is that of ensuring that when our young people enter the labour market, they will find jobs that measure up to their qualifications and expectations, as well as a saner and more compassionate society and a world at peace. Furthermore, we must tell young people, and this special year is a particularly appropriate occasion to do so, that Canada has great hopes for their generation.
However, Mr. Speaker, considering all the cut-backs in funding, the lack of money for training, and the delays in setting up summer programs for our young people, we should not be surprised if they complain about the lack of interest we are showing in their future.

Spring is upon us and young people across the country are finishing exams, or preparing for them. They are putting their winter clothes away and getting ready for summer. Whether they can do so in the knowledge that a summer job awaits them is another thing. We have heard glowing reports of how the private sector is going to do all kinds of wonderful things. 1 am waiting to see the final result. In the meantime, in February, after a long, patient winter, Challenge '85 was unveiled to Canadian students. This $205 million program claimed to be the answer to the cries for a substantial, meaningful job-crea-
May 3, 1985

tion program for our young people. From the outset skeptics voiced their concerns. The emphasis on private sector input to create 10,000 jobs worried student federation leaders across the nation. Those in the business community expressed their concern as well. I am sincerely hopeful that that concern has been overcome. We will have to hear from the Minister in that regard.
Application forms which normally should have been available have not been. That is making it difficult for the businesses to complete the forms and for the community organizations and municipalities to create the jobs which were to be career-oriented. Details were unavailable, indeed often nonexistent. Yet we all remained hopeful. There is clearly a need to create comprehensive, meaningful job opportunities for young people.
As the critic for youth, I have repeatedly stressed the importance of the youth of Canada for the future of our country. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that youth unemployment rose dramatically and is near 17.5 per cent. That is something to be truly worried about, Mr. Speaker. It is of great concern to me. The effects of unemployment on young people have been studied. It remains their chief concern and preoccupation. It has created a situation of moroseness for them. They look at society and ask what their future and potential is and where they are going to go. They are losing hope. We see that with the increase in violence and suicide. We note that with the move to prostitution, drugs and alcohol. I am hopeful that Challenge '85 and the IYY activities that were promised to speak to these concerns will have some impact. The plain fact is that the Government has missed the mark.
Taking a closer look at the various programs which fall under Challenge '85 I see little cause for celebration. Of the several projects, only the Summer Employment Experience Development Program has received even a fraction of the attention and concentration needed to ensure a moderate level of success. At this point only 33,000 jobs have been allocated. That is a far cry from the 95,000 jobs which are needed to enable students to make the money they need to ensure that they can continue their education next year. The fact that the program was announced so late has limited the creativity and input of municipalities and community organizations.
In her announcement of this program the Minister talked about being very creative. She said the program would meet certain enunciated needs of youth. She said she would have a new approach to job creation for students. Instead of offering pre-packaged, federally funded projects which only provide next year's tuition, she said that the Government was challenging its economic partners to come forward with meaningful jobs to improve students' abilities to contribute to society now and in the future. She said that they were working to harmonize the student summer program with those of the provinces
Supply
for maximum benefit to our young people. The need of all sectors of society to contribute to the participation of young Canadians in the mainstream of economic life was underlined by the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne).
In reality, the Minister decided that the program should be allocated on a first-come first-serve basis, and the criteria established for career-related jobs result in those which were submitted first being approved regardless of the value of the proposal. If someone was a little late because he or she could not get a form or did not hear the information until later, their good proposal, which would meet the aspirations and needs that were beautifully enunciated and carefully thought out, will not be met as a result of this very poor advice to centres which are administering the program. There have been no guidelines established as to what constitutes a career-related job. This is a very subjective decision which, for the most part, has been left in the hands of local authorities who have been given few, if any, details.
The Student Entrepreneur's Program was supposed to provide $30 million in loans and cost the Government up to $7.5 million. The Minister said that the entrepreneurial potential of students would be developed this summer by supporting provincial initiatives which provide them with loan guarantees or loans to start summer businesses. She said that this component will be based on, and where appropriate, meshed with, the successful use of this approach in a number of provinces. The Minister said that up to $7.5 million of SEED funds would be available for the net cost of providing up to $30 million in additional loans or loan guarantees.
There is a little problem there, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that DREE got together with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. From what I can gather, that program is not even working. Those students who were planning to undertake student entrepreneurial summer jobs are not able to do so at the moment. The money is still not unblocked. If the money does not go to that program, students are a little late to apply and get involved in something else.
This matter is of great concern to me, particularly with regard to the situation of youth unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. The national unemployment rate is 11.2 per cent. The national rate for the 15 to 24 year age group is 17.5 per cent. However, in Newfoundland it is 39.3 per cent. Almost 40 per cent of all the youth in that part of Atlantic Canada are unemployed. In Nova Scotia, 29 per cent are unemployed and in New Brunswick, 32.2 per cent are unemployed. That is absolutely dreadful. Even when a student wants to move to find another place to obtain work, his mobility grant is cut.

May 3, 1985
Supply
I gather that my time has expired. I wanted to address the cuts more significantly but I will do so at another time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with
Standing Order 62(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, May 6, 1985