1986-12-10

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, relations between the Government of Canada and this country's Indian people continue to be sour. To illustrate why this is so I use as an example the post-secondary assistance program. This program has enjoyed enormous success as more and more young Indian people seek advanced education. Now, almost without warning, the Government has decided to curtail its expenditures on this program.
There is always money, it seems, for failed banks or rich friends of the Government, but no new funds to help Indian youth develop careers and become self-reliant. The Department of Indian Affairs arbitrarily decided on a cut-off date of November 1 for applications under this program. Where, I ask, is the legal authority for such a decision?
Hundreds of Indian students will therefore be disqualified for assistance. Many hundreds of others who did meet the deadline have also been advised not to expect any help. Broken promises, shattered dreams, bitterness, resentment and anger-will the pattern never end?


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each year on this date the member states of the U.N. have observed Human Rights Day. It is not an easy day to celebrate. In spite of the noble language of the Universal Declaration, the past 38 years have seen more brutal torture, political imprisonment, and ruthless repression of rights than any previous 38 years in history. Yet this remains as a day to celebrate, with the message of Mykola Rudesko, the Ukrainian poet, who spoke for all who are helpless and yet not hopeless:
They can lock up only our body.
But the spirit will fly throughout the ages.
One year ago Canada made Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen for his heroism to humanity during the Holocaust. The world needs his heroic spirit still, and on Human Rights day Canada and all the world honours all who share it.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has been involved continuously with the parliamentary reform process which began in 1982, serving on both the Lefebvre and McGrath committees, I have had many opportunities to be pleased with the progress of reform. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), known for not keeping his promises in many other areas, lived up to his rhetoric on parliamentary reform in several important respects and we have seen much that is good as a result, not the least of which is the process by which you, Mr. Speaker, were elected servant of this House.
However, I observe with regret that yesterday was a setback for parliamentary reform. If it could be said that the Prime Minister has made his contribution to parliamentary reform, it may also be said that Conservative backbenchers missed a big opportunity yesterday when not one of them supported a motion concerning the post office which contained nothing with which many Tory backbenchers are known to disagree. They voted as a block against their own views on a motion which was not a non-confidence motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I must remind the Hon. Member that he is coming very close to reflecting on a vote and that may offend against the sensibilities of the House.


THE PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, finally the marriage between the Conservative Party and the Parti Quebecois, consummated in
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1986
1984, is producing offspring. On Monday our double-talking Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a statement in Quebec designed to undermine Quebec Bills 140 and 142. These Bills were presented by the majority Bourassa Government to provide greater language equity in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the Hon. Member to continue but I think the Hon. Member, who is an experienced parliamentarian, would want to think carefully about some of the words he has used. I am sure he will take that into account for the rest of his statement. I think language like that does create some difficulties for the Chair.


Mr. Allmand:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a result, the Prime Minister was naturally applauded by Pierre Marc Johnson, Leader of the Parti Quebecois, and criticized by Liberal Minister Lise Bacon. In this respect the Prime Minister has now aligned himself with the Association of St. John Baptiste Societies and other extremist groups. This is the same Prime Minister who, in the 1984 election and in the Speech from the Throne, promised to protect minority language rights. We now know that promise is as worthless as hundreds of others. When will the Prime Minister live up to his commitments and start telling Canadians the truth?


FRENCH LANGUAGE USAGE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Recently, Mr. Speaker, our Conservative colleague from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) took the initiative of releasing figures on the use of French in the House of Commons.
Under the Liberals French was used 9 per cent of the time in this House. In October 1986, under the Conservatives, the use of French had gone up to 20 per cent.
Which political Party belittles the use of French in the House of Commons?
In October 1984 the socialist Party used French only 3.9 per cent of the time, even less in November 1986, 3.3 per cent. However these figures are misleading because most socialist Members read texts which have been translated into French especially for the Oral Question Period.
Once again the socialist Party does not show its true colours, which is why it will not gain ground in Quebec at the next election. Mr. Speaker, Quebecers will never forget the socialist Party's hypocritical approach in its advertising.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, given the Liberals' penchant for book writing, I have a suggestion for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) which might help him make the best-sellers' list and at the same time clear up some of the confusion on the trade issue.
In a letter to The Globe and Mail today the Liberal Party's trade critic sees no contradictions in his Party's numerous stands on trade. He says his Party's contradictory policy resolutions endorsing free trade and condemning free trade are "confirmation of a truly Liberal approach to trade". The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has come down firmly on both sides of the issue, thus giving us the Liberals' idea of policy leadership.
Can the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry reconcile his stand with that of the Liberal external affairs critic? Stay tuned. The Liberal trade critic's letter to the editor is an attempt at clarifying a very muddy pond. Perhaps he should talk to his Leader and the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) to make sure that they do not drown each other. All this brings one to the inevitable question: will the real Leader of the New Democratic Party please stand up?


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: There he is!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an historic day for the people of Newfoundland. The voters of St. John's East rejected the policies of provincial and federal Tories and elected a New Democrat in a riding which has been held by Conservatives since Confederation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: In a nearby riding the Conservatives were only able to hold on by their fingernails-a very narrow win. These Newfoundland voters were rejecting the Conservative policies. They were rejecting policies which have cut services and raised prices to the fishing industry. They were rejecting policies which forced confrontations between working people and their government employers. And they were rejecting
December 10, 1986

policies enunciated in both the Nielsen and Forget Reports aimed at gutting the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The people of Newfoundland, particularly those of St. John's East, will continue to reject these policies. We look forward to the day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will take courage in both his hands and permit them to send another New Democrat to Ottawa in the awaited federal St. John's East by-election.
Finally, we congratulate Gene Long-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history a Prime Minister attended a conference on Canada's agricultural outlook and announced a $ 1 billion program for this country's grains producers. Needless to say, as a Government Member who sits on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I am extremely proud of this program under which more than $37 million will be paid out to Quebec producers of wheat, barley, oats and other agricultural commodities.
Under this financial assistance program the average producer will receive about $5,000, and even up to $25,000 in some cases.
Mr. Speaker, world-wide the agricultural sector is experiencing difficulties and this Government has decided to step in and help our producers after listening to their representations and solutions. This is one more instance where our Government did listen and respond positively, another commitment honoured by the Progressive Conservative Government-the Canadianization of agricultural programs.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on December 9 the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) issued a news release announcing a Minister's committee on fitness. This committee is to be responsible for the preparation of a report recommending a
structural framework for the management and administration of fitness at the national level.
This is an absolute outrage to the people of Atlantic Canada and western Canada. Eight people were appointed to this committee and, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) campaigned on the theme of national reconciliation, the Government did not see fit to appoint one individual from western Canada or from Atlantic Canada.
We have been alienated by the national Government, both through its economic policies and its cultural policies. Now the process of consultation is forgetting about the regions of western and Atlantic Canada. I call upon the Prime Minister to intervene and order the Minister to review the appointments to this committee to make sure that people from Atlantic Canada and western Canada are included.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, although I am occasionally disappointed by the quality of reporting on agricultural issues in the urban dailies, I am pleased that today's Globe and Mail quotes Wayne Easter, the President of NFU, as saying that the federal Government should be commended for the manner in which the $1 billion has been distributed among grain producers. As Don Knoerr, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, has indicated, it was the farm organizations themselves that devised the formula and the results are satisfying.
Grain farmers know that the $1 billion payment is the largest such payment in Canadian history, and they are particularly appreciative of the fact that this is a cash payment rather than the loan which the critics had forecast. While the $1 billion payment will not in itself resolve the grain industry's financial crisis, I am delighted that over $150 million will go to Manitoba farmers, particularly in light of the fact that that is virtually the figure for which such spokesmen as the Hon. Bill Uruski have been calling. Now if only provincial Governments would match this $1 billion payment, the Canadian grain picture would be vastly improved.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have just found out that Cancoil Thermal Corp., a Kingston company, has decided to lay off its workers and close down its plant simply because the workers decided they wanted to unionize.

December 10, 1986
Oral Questions
This is a very objectionable practice, but what makes it even more objectionable is the fact that the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Member of Parliament who represents that area, just recently gave that same company $100,000 to expand its plant and to create 35 new jobs.
This is a very serious issue. I call upon the Government to investigate this matter and to ensure that federal government money is not being used to help this strikebreaker and unionbuster create jobs for himself and his family and no one else.

thousands of refugees and hundreds of organizations working on their behalf. Not only has the Conservative Government failed to honour its own promise, but it also refuses to meet with major church leaders and refugee organizations before the policy is introduced.
[DOT] (U20)
The Government is turning its back on the human needs of refugees. It is not consulting with interested Canadians. It is refusing to address the new refugee phenomenon in Canadian society, which requires urgent and significant reform. Shamefully, the Government is offering neither leadership nor compassion. Come to think of it, it is ending the year in the same manner in which it started the year.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) was the first Prime Minister ever to attend the Agricultural Outlook Conference which just concluded here in Ottawa yesterday. It was there that the details of the Special Canadian Grains Program were announced. This was very good news for agricultural producers from sea to sea who will receive the $1 billion prior to seeding their 1987 crops.
The program delivers on a commitment made by the Prime Minister in this House on October 3. It is an equitable national program that puts straight cash, new money, into the pockets of farmers, with no strings attached. The formulation of the delivery of this program marked an historic change in the attitude of Government. How different it is when a Prime Minister says: "When the farmers hurt, the Parliament of Canada should respond". It is much different from a previous Prime Minister whose response was the finger and the question: "Why should I sell your wheat?"
* *
*



REFUGEES


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the year's end, the Government has still to introduce legislation concerning a new refugee determination system. Canadians have been promised such reform for the last two years by four different Immigration Ministers. Moreover, the Speech from the Throne committed the Government to action, and the current Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) publicly stated that the package would be before Parliament this past fall. Parliament is still waiting, as are



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the visit yesterday of Senator Lloyd Bentsen and his other colleagues from the United States Senate.
In his press conference, and indeed in our own conversations with him, the Senator indicated that the United States expected that the Auto Pact would be an item on the table during the current negotiations with Canada. Since the Prime Minister had the opportunity of meeting with the Senators prior to our meeting with them, was the Prime Minister not able to indicate to them quite clearly that the Auto Pact is not an item for negotiation, and is not a subject of the free trade proposals?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we did briefly touch upon it. I indicated, and I believe the Minister of International Trade indicated, that the Auto Pact had worked extremely well for some extended period of time, and we saw no reason why it ought to form the basis of any negotiation.
Reference was made to the fact that inasmuch as the automotive trade generally represents some one-third of the total traffic back and forth, if it could be improved upon then it could be looked at. But I was not aware of any statement with regard to a determination to sit down with a view to revising what has been a beneficial instrument.


John Napier Turner: That is what Senator Bentsen said at his press conference and when he met with Liberal Members.
December 10, 1986



CANADIAN CULTURAL INDUSTRIES-NEED TO MAINTAIN CANADIAN ISM

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. The United States senators visiting Ottawa yesterday also indicated that Canada's cultural industries were still on the table. Did the Prime Minister have a chance to make it clear to our American friends that our cultural industries will remain Canadian and that they are not on the table in the free trade talks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there were a number of meetings but these were not negotiating sessions. The United States senators did not have a mandate to negotiate. These were meetings to provide a general overview, considering the increasing importance the committee will have starting in January. There was no question of negotiating sessions, but the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Finance and myself again emphasized Canada's cultural issues and their vital importance to our future. To my knowledge, nothing was said that might cost doubts on this position.



SOFTWOOD LUMBER-COUNTERVAILING RIGHTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the subject arose in our conversations with the United States senators. We also indicated that countervailing duties of the kind used in the recent exercise involving our lumber exports were not acceptable to Canada. However, the United States senators insisted, both publicly, in speaking to the press, and to us, that these duties will remain law in the U.S. Is the Prime Minister of Canada prepared to continue these talks if the Americans reject any restrictions on these duties?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we will have to start negotiations to find out what kind of settlement will be useful and feasible. We have not reached that stage yet. I stressed the problems this duty creates for Canada in the present circumstances, and I expressed the hope that we could find a formula or formulas that would be more favourable to Canada. I also said that if the final decision was not to our advantage, there would be no transaction. The Government would reject the decision, and I said I saw a valid transaction as one that was in the interests of both sides. I was speaking above all as the Prime Minister of Canada. I stressed the primary importance of a very good settlement for Canadians.



UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. We have just received the memo from the Minister saying that the proposed negotiations with the United
Oral Questions
States on softwood lumber have now failed. The Government has now put the country back to square one in trying to resolve the major problems with the U.S. lumber industry, which will affect 400,000 jobs. Now that the flawed and failed approach has once again been demonstrated, will the Minister do what she should have been doing right along, that is, pursue Canadian interests through the international tribunal and through the American tribunal where we have and have had a good case, and could win that case if you had not been fooling around so long?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that the last part of the question directed to the Minister used the personal "you". I ask Hon. Members to remember that that leads to difficulties in the Chamber. I do not like to interrupt lead questions, but I would ask the Hon. Member to be very careful.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will rephrase the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Could the Minister tell us when the Government will stop fooling around and pursue the proper course of action with international tribunals? When will the Government stop fooling around?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who has asked his first question on international trade since they failed to resolve the issue in the Liberal convention, is wrong on both counts. First, we are pursuing the matter in the GATT vigorously. We took it before the GATT, and we are fighting it vigorously before the GATT. He is wrong when he says that we are not doing that. There was a hearing on November 3, and there will be another hearing on the issue before the GATT panel on Friday.
He is also wrong when he says that negotiations have failed. I am making a statement saying that Canadians have taken to Washington a proposal, as agreed to between the Prime Minister and the Premiers. That is under intense discussion. The American administration has put forward a proposal, some elements of which are unacceptable to us. I will be informing them, after I have had a chance to review it, of those elements which are unacceptable to us.
Officials are meeting right now with the Ministers of the provinces to review developments, and further meetings are scheduled in Washington next week.


Lloyd Axworthy: I say to the Minister that the statement she just made sounds very much to me like a grand, big failure on the part of the Government.



CONTINUATION OF NEGOTIATIONS

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister reconcile the continuation of so-called negotiations which are clearly unacceptable at the same time as she says that the Government wants to go in front of tribunals in the United States and GATT, even though

December 10, 1986
Oral Questions
it is undermining its case by continuing the negotiations? You cannot do both things. When will the Government get its act together and start defending the lumber industry in Canada before we lose everything-the import duty, jobs, and the whole industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Some force in questioning is certainly acceptable, but I think endless argument is going too far.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the only failure here is the failure of the Liberal Opposition to have a coherent position on free trade; they now have at least three.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I again stress to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, the fact that the GATT rules provide for actively pursuing an issue and trying to settle it between the parties. If he knew more about the GATT, he would understand that. However, he and his Party understand nothing about international trade.



UNITED STATES PROPOSAL-REASONS FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, we too have just received the statement by the Minister that an American proposal has been put forward and that it is unacceptable and cannot form a basis for discussion. I want the Minister for once to take the House and the country into her confidence and tell us why the American proposal is unacceptable and why she feels that it must be rejected at this stage.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can best answer that by again referring, as I have many times in this House, to the statement made at the First Ministers' Conference which said that the Canadian proposal met certain objectives, which included;
The provinces will retain their flexibility in determining stumpage pricing. A dangerous development in U.S. countervail policy will be avoided .. . Further conflict between the provinces will be avoided.
And most important, Mr. Speaker:
The ability of the provinces to determine their own natural resource management policies will remain unimpaired-U.S. regulatory authorities will not infringe Canadian sovereignty by policing provincial management practices.


Mr. Benjamin:: Now, answer the question.


Pat Carney: That is what I have said repeatedly were our objectives, and I am now telling the Hon. Member that the American proposal does not meet them.



POSITION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. Since she has followed in her recent shifts and flip-flops the lead of
Mr. Vander Zalm of British Columbia, will she stand up here today and say that his efforts in this regard and his suggestions that we have now reached a tentative settlement, which could be announced almost immediately, have to be condemned as interference in the role of the federal Government in international trade?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: You always wanted the provinces involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I never heard a question in that statement made by the Hon. Member, as I think you are aware, and I am at a loss to answer. I think the Hon. Member is referring to some press reports quoting the Premier of British Columbia. The Premier has been in Cabinet all morning. I have been unable to speak to him to find out what, in fact, he did say.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the most expensive rendition of When Irish Eyes Are Smiling in the history of mankind. Can the Prime Minister tell this House why he chose to spend $2.6 million of taxpayers' money on a day and a half meeting while asking ordinary Canadians to make do with less and to pay more taxes? Is it not time that the Prime Minister stood up in this House and apologized to the people of Canada for this kind of spending orgy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: What is the question?


Mr. Riis:: Nobody wants to answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: There is the butler.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister. He may be able to find a question in that address.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no question in that, but if my hon. friend thinks that I am going to apologize for conducting Canadian foreign policy in such a way as to build positive and constructive bridges to our friends and allies, you are mistaken. I do not owe you an apology for anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 10, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I must, of course, be absolutely even-handed here today and remind the Right Hon. Prime Minister that his enthusiasm also must be held in check. He should not refer to other Hon. Members with the word "you" or in the other language "vous".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.



REQUEST THAT PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PAY EXPENSES

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may not owe me an apology but he owes the people of Canada an apology.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: This behaviour would make Marie Antoinette envious. Can the Prime Minister tell this House here and now whether the Conservative Party is going to reimburse the taxpayers of Canada for what was nothing less than a giant photo opportunity for him and his friend Ronald Reagan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the honourable-


An Hon. Member:: I see the Irish are smiling.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you are going to speak ill of the Irish, I am telling you-


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Right Hon. Prime Minister that I do not think anybody wishes to speak ill of anybody in this Chamber. Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister will have another go at answering the Hon. Member.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is suggesting that, indeed, we have friendly relationships with the President of the United States, he is quite right. That is the way it ought to be. As he will see, we hope in January to have the-
[ Translation]
Prime Minister of France, Mr. Chirac, visit Ottawa and we intend to give him the same cordial welcome we give all our friends and allies, all heads of state who visit Canada.
We do not act like clowns or idiots, we behave in a mature and dignified way, like any country with the least bit of selfrespect.
Oral Questions



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is about yesterday's announcement of the farm aid program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Thank you for your question last week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I did not realize I was that popular with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: You are not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: At least I was.
Canadians should realize that even with the billion dollars that we appreciate-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -Canadians should be aware that our farmers will still be receiving some $2.50 a bushel less than farmers in the United States. In light of that, does the Minister of Agriculture consider that the billion dollars are sufficient for Canadian farmers when they will still receive $2.50 a bushel less than American farmers? Is it sufficient in view of the fact that this is a long-term problem?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments and representations. We certainly recognize that there is a very significant shortfall between the income of the U.S. farmer and the income of the Canadian farmer. I think what is important is that this Government recognizes there is a problem. Our Government made a commitment to do everything possible to make up that short-fall. We made that commitment, and yesterday we delivered on that commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TIMING OF PAYMENTS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why this payment is being spread over two fiscal years? There is some concern in the west that this procedure may preclude a payment next year if the problem remains the same. Can we have, in other words, a commitment from the Minister of continuing support as long as the farmers are being ravaged by the international grain war situation in which we are now?


John Wise: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member would not want to be irresponsible and mislead Canadian farmers into thinking

December 10, 1986
1962________________________________
Oral Questions
that we have the financial resources in Canada to take on Washington, because the reality is that we do not.
We have calendar years and we have fiscal years. I want to remind the Hon. Member that the most important year is the cropping year. Perhaps the Member will bear that in mind. The policy of our Government and the commitment we delivered yesterday are that if farmers respond with their applications with accuracy and on time, that will place us in a position to deliver the full billion dollar cash payment into their hands prior to the seeding of the 1987 crop.



INTERNATIONAL GRAIN AGREEMENT INQUIRY

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister realizes the real problem is the trade war with the ECM and the U.S. Farm Bill which amount to massive subsidies to farmers in those two areas. In light of that is the Government planning any new initiatives to renegotiate once again a meaningful international grain agreement whereby the price of grain is based on the cost of production?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that has a very high priority. That is why the Prime Minister took the leadership role that he did in the world community. That is why the Secretary of State for External Affairs continues to play a lead role there, along with the Minister of Finance and my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. We will keep right on pushing because the Hon. Member is absolutely right, that is important.
The Hon. Member should realize as well that we will be reconvening meetings with leaders of the farm commodity groups across the country to work together to chart a course and develop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and this is just to remind him that in 1985, he organized a superbash to improve his image in the eyes of the U.S. president. This cost $2.6 million in taxpayers' money. Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he wasted
their money in this way, while, at the same time, his Government was getting ready to cut unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of pre-retirees who were still looking for a job?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that the Prime Minister has already stated that the Government of Canada will follow the policies he has directed. I do not think any Canadian should take a back seat in terms of the very best that Canada can put forward for its allies and friends. I think that is important.
Secondly, the relationship the Member assumes in his question simply does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.



SITUATION OF EARLY RETIREES

Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to defend his policy on pre-retirees.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Is the Prime Minister, who is quite willing to talk to foreign visitors from the United States and France, willing to be as cordial with his pre-retirees whose benefits were cut off, and do so by immediately reimbursing the 34,000 people whose unemployment insurance benefits were cut by his Government? Can he treat Canadians with respect as well?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie has changed his mind since last Friday, when he was congratulating the Government and the Minister-


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Minister cheated us!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, anyone who read the information properly does not feel cheated. But people who are in a hurry to accuse the Government of backtracking were disappointed when they noticed the Government did not backtrack. In fact, it has simply applied the principles it upheld in the first place, but since applying these principes meant that a remedy was necessary in the case of people who were looking for employment, we provided that remedy.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Tell the truth!


Benoît Bouchard: We listened to the Hon. Member earlier, and now I wish he would let me answer.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Just tell the truth!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre.
December 10, 1986



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that under the U.S. Farm Bill U.S. farmers will get even more subsidies next crop year while the Europeans show no sign of backing off in their subsidies. Given the likelihood of the international grain subsidy wars continuing, what longterm programs is the Government contemplating to get grain producers in Canada through the next three to five years?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I answered part of that question a few moments ago. We will continue doing exactly what we have been doing in the last six or eight months. We will be convening meetings in February, in co-operation with farmers, to chart a course that will get us through these very difficult times.



SPECIAL CANADIAN GRAINS PROGRAM

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the pay-out yesterday would the Minister assure the House that it continues to be government policy to view this $1 billion pay-out as new money separate from any future grain income so it will not reduce pay-outs under the stabilization programs now in effect?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced we said it would be $1 billion of new money in the pockets of Canadian farmers, and that no existing funding of any agricultural program would be reduced. The announcement was, as usual, consistent with the policy enunciated by this Government.



TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
CRITICISMS MADE BY BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS Hon. John W. Bosley (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker-
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, there are in this House a number of present and future authors who will always be concerned about publishers' questions. My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I would like to know whether she accepts as legitimate the deeply serious and deeply concerned criticisms which have been made of federal policy by Canada's booksellers and publishers and, if she does, what is she going to do about them?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Hon. Member for Don Valley West for the very succinct and proper way in which he presents his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Answer it!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously he had a certain length of time to learn how to present questions and he has learned well. May I say to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was succinct and I would ask the Hon. Minister to be equally succinct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we all learn in this place. May I say to him that I had the opportunity to meet yesterday with representatives of the industry and listened to their concerns. Some of them were legitimate and some were unfounded. I think I had the opportunity to allay some of the fears and point out that we had already taken steps to show our good faith and interest in the book publishing industry by adding substantially to the funding of the book publishing development fund and setting up of a fund for the public use of literary works.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.



MINISTER'S STATEMENT-UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SHAKES AND SHINGLES

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the short-sighted initiative taken by the Minister who just spoke is going to have terrible repercussions on this House. The entire book industry in Canada is appealing to the Government to remove the tariff on imported books. The Minister of Finance stubbornly clings to the absurd notion that we are retaliating against the American shakes and shingles-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member put her question?


Sheila Finestone: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. How can he explain the contradictions in the statement made yesterday to the Coalition of Canadian Book Publishers that the book tariff would be removed in exchange for concessions on the shakes and shingles duty with his Government's previous statement that cultural industries would be not a bargaining chip on the free trade table?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there is anything inconsistent in those two statements. The question of shakes and shingles arose last May. The response this Government made to that action had nothing at all to do with free trade talks. We said it was in the national interest for the Government to respond, and respond firmly, to the action taken by the U.S. Government. We did that. As I said at that time, we were not happy with the action

December 10, 1986
Oral Questions
but it was important to demonstrate the firmness with which we would respond to what we felt were unfair and unnecessary actions by the U.S. Government.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it stretches the imagination to find a link between that tariff and the tariff on books.



REQUEST THAT TARIFF BE RESCINDED

Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with the evidence mounting that it is not the Americans who are being punished but Canadian book readers, with book prices escalating and book sales falling, and with Canadian book publishers losing millions of dollars, will the Government come to its senses and act now to rescind that unintelligent, regressive tax on reading?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on this and many other occasions in the House that we are sensitive to the impact that this has had on the book publishing industry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are you doing about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have met with representatives of the industry, as has my colleague, the Minister of Communications. It is very important. I am sure that the Hon. Member or her colleagues would be hammering us for not taking action against the United States Government on the shakes and shingles issue if we had not done this. We know that it has had an impact in Washington and that the U.S. Government is very concerned about further actions. That is why we took the action we did.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: For the Minister of State (Transport), Mr. Speaker, another question concerning Dorval and Mirabel as well as the meetings and briefings I had in Montreal yesterday. Is the Minister aware that a consensus has developed in the Greater Montreal region in favour of concentrating air passenger services in Dorval and seeking alternative vocations for Mirabel airport, a position which is in total contradiction with the federal Government decision? Can he tell us whether the decision to maintain both Dorval and Mirabel airports is final? Or is the Government still prepared to entertain the views of municipalities and associations representing Greater Montreal residents?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport)):: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the Mirabel-Dorval issue was the
subject of two-year consultations, and the one thing I am aware of is that 1,000 jobs will be saved, not to mention 1,000 more which will probably be created. As a result of this sound Government decision, both airports will be improved and Greater Montreal residents can only be better off.



OPINIONS EXPRESSED-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Michael Morris Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware of the fact that, and I quote the President of the Chamber of Commerce:
Montreal business leaders totally disagree with the federal Government decision-
They would know something about jobs.
Does the Minister ignore the consultations with and reject the opinions expressed by the City of Montreal, the Montreal Urban Community, the Montreal Board of Trade, the Chamber of Commerce, Air Canada, the Association of Machinists, and 17 other organizations? Does he reject all these opinions? Is this the kind of consultations he had with the people of Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister has the floor.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the socialist Member forgot something about the briefing he was given: to my mind, Mirabel and the residents of the Laurentians are part of the Greater Montreal region. This significant correction should be kept in mind, and I think that the Chamber of Commerce will become ever more aware of the economic impact of the Laurentians on the Greater Montreal region.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It concerns the final payment for No. 1 and No. 2 wheat in the past crop year. Is the Minister prepared to take the necessary action today to ensure that the producers of No. 1 and No. 2 Red Spring wheat will get their full final payment to which they are entitled for this past crop year, and for which the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other responsible farm organizations have been asking?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the formal closing of the Wheat Pools are just taking place now and that the final calculations are not complete. We also know that the Canadian Wheat Board has said that if there is to be a payment it does not expect it to be a very large payment for
December 10, 1986

No. 1 and No. 2 Pools. Basically, the Hon. Member is asking a very hypothetical question.



REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that unless the Government makes a commitment to do this, it will cost these producers some $200 million. A decision was made in 1970 to do the same thing for Durum wheat to ensure that they got the full final payment. Why is the Minister so reluctant to make that commitment today, in view of the difficult times experienced by agricultural producers on the Prairies?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about commitments. The Prime Minister made a commitment on October 3 to deliver a billion dollars. First the Opposition said that we would not fulfil the commitment, then it said it would not be in cash, and then said it would be a loan guarantee. We fulfilled the commitment and the Prime Minister, in doing so yesterday, set a precedent. For the first time ever we saw a Prime Minister address an Agriculture Outlook conference in this country. Our commitment to agriculture is well known.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He will know that talks have broken off between Canadian National and its employees as CN was unwilling to negotiate a moratorium on lay-offs at the Moncton shops. The employees will be in a legal position to strike in approximately three weeks and the unions have requested the assistance of the Minister. Will he immediately appoint a conciliator in order to avoid a CN national railway strike and speed up the negotiation process by which the issue at the Moncton shops can be resolved?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we received the request to which the Hon. Member is referring. We are considering it.



LAY-OFFS AT MONCTON

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since CN has been carrying on systematic economic terrorism through lay-offs at Moncton in October, November, and December, all of which are under grievance, will the Minister request or direct Canadian National not to delay arbitration hearings on the legality of these lay-offs so that there will be no delaying tactics by CN?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that a large part of the solution to the difficult situation at Moncton was refused by two of the unions, including the machinists union, which had signed a memorandum on October 3, I believe, by which a generous offer made by CN was accepted but later repudiated by those unions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By the membership.


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope the Hon. Member could use his influence with those unions to get them to change their position.



FERRIES


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest insults ever issued to Newfoundland since Confederation was the announcement the day before yesterday by CN Marine, alias Marine Atlantic, that it was changing its schedule for ferry boats to and from Newfoundland. Is the Minister of Transport aware that now it will take three days from the time someone gets off the CN bus at Port-aux-Basques until they get on the CN train, VIA Rail, in Sydney, Nova Scotia? It will take three days now when previously it normally took nine hours. Is this the new freedom to move policy of the federal Government? We know that we are half an hour behind, but surely three days is a bit much.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy receiving an intelligent question. Of course, I am still waiting to receive one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I might say to the hon. gentleman that his performance was the greatest since King Kong climbed the Empire State Building.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Marine Atlantic has published a new suggested schedule, one that it wishes to put into operation on January 3, that will be in effect from early September to late June. Unfortunately, this will badly affect 3 per cent of the passengers, those who go by bus or take VIA Rail. It will be very much favoured by the 97 per cent who travel in their motor vehicles. There is an average of 12 passengers a day who use the other mode of transportation.
It is eliminating the overnight crossing because, although not everyone likes to see clearly like the Hon. Member, most passengers like to travel in the daylight. Finally, I have asked
1966

December 10, 1986
Oral Questions
Marine Atlantic to meet with the Newfoundland Department of Transportation and Tourism to review the situation and see if other connecting services can change their schedules as well to alleviate the time period the Hon. Member is complaining about.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's response to Newfoundlanders this morning is that he keeps Crown corporations at arm's length. He is going to need to be farther away from Newfoundlanders than arm's length when they find out what has been done by this Crown corporation.



ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES

George Baker: The Minister talks about motorists. All right. Motorists going to Newfoundland will arrive in Newfoundland in the middle of the night in darkness when everything is closed. When they leave they will have to drive all night in order to catch the one ferry boat at dawn. What is the Government trying to do, keep the travelling public in Newfoundland in perpetual darkness?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is why we are eliminating the overnight crossings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It would be simpler if we could have 24 hours of daylight, of course.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I might add there is a greater gulf in the Hon. Member's head than there is in the Cabot Strait.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HIBERNIA OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. He will be aware that the New Democratic Party in St. John's can trounce the Tories even with one hand tied behind our back and with our Leader in jail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Where is Broadbent?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: There is a message here.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where is he?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway will put his question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am getting carried away with the Newfoundlanders. I am talking about our provincial leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister a serious question. He announced the Atlantic Accord on February 11, 1985, promising development in Hibernia. There has not been one barrel of oil taken out of Hibernia. When is the Government going to get the lead out and start developing the Hibernia oil field?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has announced a new secret weapon of the NDP- they are going to jail Broadbent-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and give themselves a great chance for another moral victory.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Negotiations are still under way between the Government, Mobil Oil and their partners, and the Government of Newfoundland on that subject and we hope the new year will bring the news that some agreement has been reached. We can assure the Hon. Member we are doing everything we can to facilitate that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a short supplementary question.



GRAND BANKS-HUSKY OIL PROPOSAL

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister looked at the proposal of Husky Oil to develop a 100 million barrel floating production field in the Grand Banks? And when will the Government be in a position to respond to this proposal and get the development going?


John Carnell Crosbie: This is not my portfolio, Mr. Speaker, and I have no right to answer that question. However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say we have received that proposal from Husky and the Department of my hon. friend-I cannot mention his name; it shall be unmentionable-has looked at it as well. The main hope and concentration are on the discussions with Mobil Oil.
December 10, 1986



UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER-RESIGNATION OF FORESTRY INDUSTRY COUNCIL VICECHAIRMAN

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. John Kerr has resigned as the Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Forestry Industry Council. Has the Minister been able to determine if this clarifies a shift of consensus in the forest industry policy? And what effect will this have on the negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Mr. Kerr who has told me he has resigned as the Vice-Chairman of that industry group because he does not support the views or the strategy of Adam Zimmerman, the President. He does not feel, in his words to me, that "Fed bashing" is a useful strategy to solve this dispute.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did they hurt your feelings, Pat?


Pat Carney: He has also assured me that he feels industry has a role to play in any negotiations to resolve the lumber dispute and that he and other members of the industry are willing to work with us-


Lloyd Axworthy: Why don't you join them?


Pat Carney: -to try to seek a solution to this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should advise Hon. Members that we got started later than I would have preferred today. I will take one more question. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.



NATURAL RESOURCES


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the issue of the utilization of western coal. As he is well aware, three federal Departments have participated along with provincial governments in the task force. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why a similar study has not been initiated by his Government with regard to the utilization of coal from eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for shipment to the Province of Ontario?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. As the Hon. Member knows, there is some coal from western Canada being used in Ontario at the present time. This study was initiated to determine whether in fact
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
that capacity could be increased. I will certainly take the representations of the Hon. Member and consider the action he suggested.



REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of fairness, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to give us an undertaking that he will ensure that coal from eastern Nova Scotia and the Province of New Brunswick will be given the same serious consideration presently being given to western coal utilization in the Province of Ontario. Would he give us that undertaking today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows there are a lot of factors which have to be considered in such an initiative. I am not fully aware of all of those factors. However, as I indicated, I would certainly be prepared to take the Hon. Member's representations seriously and look into the matter.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: I rise on what I believe to be a serious matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I invite your ruling. I refer to a front page news story by the Canadian Press which is carried in today's "Canada Section" of The Montreal Gazette. Similar stories, of course, were carried by other Canadian daily newspapers, including The Ottawa Citizen. The story headline reads: "MP says panel wants rewrite of Post Office plan". The lead paragraph reads:
A Commons committee studying the future of the post office will urge a major rewrite of the agency's new business plan, but Tory MPs want to retain a controversial proposal to turn most rural post offices over to private operators, a committee member told Canadian Press yesterday.
Here we have a member of the committee who is clearly breaching a basic privilege of the House and the committee, which is to make its report to the House and no one else until the House receives the report. This ensures what Beauchesne calls "the orderly conduct of parliamentary business".
Beauchesne is absolutely clear on this point. He speaks of the "power", to use his words, of the House to enforce its rules. The House Leader of the New Democratic Party reminded us of this very power here in the House on November 21 when he raised a point of privilege alleging prior knowledge of the content of legislation. He quoted Citation 22 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.

December 10, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Holtmam
The House Leader of the New Democratic Party reminded us of how leaked information, albeit on a Bill rather than a committee report, led swiftly to the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain in 1974 after he made an offhand comment to a journalist about a detail in his budget.
The Liberal House Leader (Mr. Gray) on the same point of privilege, said:
-the final word has not been said on what constitutes parliamentary privilege for the Canadian House of Commons, that it would be open for it to be held that this tradition should be extended to leaks of information involving legislation other than budget statements or budgetary legislation.
I do not think I have to ask the Chair to extend the privilege to speak against leaks from committees. That privilege, as we know, is established. It has been breached in the present incident and it is for the House to take the appropriate action, with which the Speaker is familiar, pursuant to our rules and practices.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure you and the House that I did not breach the confidentiality of that meeting. I say that to all Members assembled here. I also indicate to the Chair that I chaired that meeting and prior to commencing our duties I informed committee members that what was taking place at the meeting was confidential and of the highest regard.
I have asked my committee colleagues on this side of the House if they have knowledge of this leak. I expect they may wish to indicate to the House directly their positions on this alleged breach. I would ask you, Sir, to allow all committee members who wish to speak to this point of privilege to speak to it.
I do not say committee members cannot remark on committee business arising from open, public meetings. But in camera meetings, such as were involved in this case, exist to protect Members' privileges, especially when a report is under preparation. I submit that this privilege has been breached rather spectacularly in the present case.
The reason Beauchesne's speaks of the concept of interference is exactly to prevent the situation we have in the fourth paragraph of the Canadian Press story. Here some members are pointed to by other members before the House can know the reality through obtaining the report from the in camera work of the committee.
The story reads:
But Tory MPs on the committee like the idea of letting local businessmen run rural post offices, and seem determined to push for its adoption, the MP said. The committee meets behind closed doors again today.
The privileges of these Members are violated by such a statement from a member of the committee disclosing alleged in camera proceedings. On the face of them, such comments simply impede the committee in doing its work; and they simply impede the House in its right to enjoy an orderly presentation and conduct of proposals from its committees.
Over the years the House has not been without comments or rulings from the Chair on alleged breaches of privilege arising from premature disclosure of committee reports. All Members here are taught very early that contents of such reports are confidential until they are tabled.
I would refer you, Sir, to a few rulings or observations from the Chair on earlier instances of alleged premature disclosure of committee reports. I refer to the Journals for September 6 in which there was a similar situation. There were some rulings by the Chair on that day and I would like to relate them very briefly to Your Honour.
First, the Chair refers to a citation found in the May 17 edition at page 119. The author states that by the ancient custom of Parliament, no act done at any committee should be divulged before the same is reported to the House. Further, it is stated that this principle clearly deals with in camera sessions. I suggest to Members here that when we have proceeded in camera it should be just that.
I hear some gaggling and waggling from members of the Opposition, but they would not want it any other way, I am sure.
Before I conclude, I would like to add that more recently on November 21, 1986 a discussion of privilege was carried on by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He quoted Citation 22 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states as follows:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise and associate myself with the remarks just put forward for your consideration. I was present at that particular meeting, not in my capacity as a member of that committee but in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary. I enjoy the privilege of sitting in and listening to the deliberations of the committee. At no time did I communicate with any member of the press with respect to the content of that particular meeting. I want to reassure Your Honour and my colleagues that in fact is the case.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that I was a member of the Government Operations Committee which sat on Tuesday, December 9, 1986, to help draft a report on Canada Post. In my opinion committee reports are confidential until presented in the House. In my opinion it is an absolute breach of privilege for a member of a committee to breach that confidence. I want to assure the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that I did not speak to any member of the Canadian Press on Tuesday, December 9, 1986.
...
*
||p

.
December 10, 1986


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Government Operations Committee which sat last Tuesday to draft a report on Canada Post. I want to assure the House that I gave no interviews to anyone in the media whatsoever. It was fully understood at this committee meeting that our report was to be confidential. So there was a definite breach of privilege by a member of that committee.


Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was a member of the Government Operations Committee which sat on Tuesday, December 9, 1986 to draft a report on Canada Post. Committee reports are confidential until presented in the House. It is an absolute breach of privilege for a member of a committee to breach that confidence. I want to assure the House that I personally did not speak to any member of the Canadian Press on Tuesday, December 9, 1986.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) has attempted to put before you what he calls a breach of privilege. I only want to observe, with the utmost of respect, that the Hon. Member has presented a grievance since he has not indicated any intention to move a motion if a prima facie case of privilege is found. If that is the case then, I repeat, he has at most expressed a grievance.
Furthermore, while I attempted to listen carefully to what the Hon. Member was saying, he did not clearly state that the committee had prepared a report. He seemed to be saying that there was some kind of discussion at an in camera meeting of the committee. To the extent that there are precedents on this matter, they deal with the premature disclosure of a report formally voted upon and decided upon by a committee. Unless I did not hear the Hon. Member clearly, he did not say that a report had been finally decided and voted upon.
Also, with respect to the precedents in this regard I note that at page 203 of Beauchesne's one will see Citation 647 which deals with this type of matter which came up in 1977. The Speaker ruled that the matter could not be resolved. He did not appear to make any final ruling in as much as the British practice, which I think was cited by my hon. friend, was not found to apply to what is going on in Canada.
Finally, I suggest and, in fact, I strongly submit that the attempt of the Hon. Member and his colleagues to introduce into this House something quite contrary to the British concept of justice should be firmly rejected. We have a situation in which people stand condemned of any alleged wrong-doing unless they stand up and plead their innocence. This is totally contrary to the traditions of Canadian and British justice. I think the House and you, Sir, should reject any attempt to bring into this House any discredited concept of star chamber proceedings. This concept was firmly rejected by the British people over 300 years ago. There is no way Canadians will want to see the process of this House distorted so that those who did not rise to profess a particular view which had been
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
urged upon them would stand convicted of some alleged wrongdoing. I think the Hon. Member should be ashamed of himself, as should his colleagues, for trying to introduce into the House a concept so un-British and, even more, so unCanadian. They should stand condemned for this reason-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I listened with great care to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) because he pleads a case well. I would not want the Hon. Member to stray too far into imputing motives to Hon. Members in the House. I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West has made his point. The Chair does not for one minute take it that Hon. Members who have not risen are, as a consequence, condemned or even under suspicion.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise to say that I did not speak to the press with regard to what went on in the committee. I must make it clear that I did not talk to the press about what went on in the committee, but the reason I hesitate to say so is that I do not want to feed suspicious minds and I do not wish to feed the notion that there is a rule that whatever happens in Steering Committee meetings is confidential and privileged.
I would contend that the confidentiality of what goes on in a Steering Committee depends upon the trust and agreement of members and is a matter of honour and choice. If a member of a committee speaks to the press, it does not stop us from functioning as Members of Parliament.
I would like to make another point. Just because Canadian Press says that an MP said something, does that mean that an MP said that? I would like to make my main point without revealing what went on in the discussions. To my knowledge, no report has been drafted and I would therefore ask what it is that has been revealed to the public.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee and I need not plead the fifth. However, I would like to add my point of view to the discussion. What seems to be at stake is a suggestion by a Member of Parliament that our conversations should be censored, whether we are talking to someone from Canadian Press or to our constituents. Whether we do so or not is our business. For other committee members to start censoring our conversations is unparliamentary and I wish the Speaker would so rule.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of this committee but I am Chairman of a Standing Committee and I understand the problems involved when Standing Committees prepare confidential reports to be tabled in the House. It has always been my understanding as a Chairman of a Standing Committee that committees often deal with very sensitive matters that reflect on discussions between members as to recommendations to the Government. Often the discussions and consensus of members can affect the market, the way public servants react and the way government departments operate. As a consequence, it is essential that the

December 10, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
private discussions of a parliamentary committee and its members remain in camera and remain with the members. It is essential that the reports of parliamentary committees remain the property of the committee until they are released to the public. They should not be the property of the press or the public in general, nor should there be speculation about what a member of the committee or a group of members of the committee said.
Later today I will be tabling a report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. That report was prepared in camera and has not been leaked to the press or distributed to anyone. That report will become public when it is released.
It is important that the House Committee on Privileges and Elections hold public hearings on this issue so that the House can determine where it stands with respect to in camera meetings, how members should conduct themselves and, indeed, how the press should conduct itself when dealing with matters of this sensitivity.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) would suggest to the House and the public at large that an in camera meeting should be anything but in camera. The purpose of such a meeting is to allow Members of the House, regardless of political faith, to try to arrive at a consensus, if possible, or at least make plans for the committee. It is not necessarily in the best interests of the committee or of the nation for these plans to become the property of the press immediately.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West has participated in in camera meeitngs unless he is an exception. As a Minister, items with which he had dealt had been before in camera committee meetings. If Members of the House cannot meet in good faith in camera, then the system will not work. The matter which has been placed before us by the Chairman of the Committee is one to which we must give very, very serious consideration in the interests of all Parties and all Canadians.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a question of a lack of respect for the confidentiality of Steering Committees or meetings held in camera. Since I have been here, there have been numerous breaches of that confidence by members of the Opposition and it is disgusting-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) has made a statement but has not named an Hon. Member. However, I would ask the Hon. Member to walk carefully around danger and not to make charges in the Chamber. I would ask him to continue his remarks, which I always find helpful.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I can cite an example. Regarding de Havilland, members of the Opposition actually had to apologize for breaches of confidentiality in regard to
meetings that were held in camera and this is why I bring the subject forward.


Mr. Speaker:: I think in the interest of getting to the point, I would ask the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody to address the particular item that is before the Chair. As the Chair understands it, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) has raised a question of privilege which is that something that went on in an in camera committee has turned up in the press. I understand that is the allegation. What goes with that allegation is the question of whether this is a breach of privilege because it is an in camera meeting.
Other Members have been concerned that because some Members have risen and said that they did not talk to the press, that was an invitation for the Speaker to perhaps look with disfavour on other Members who do not rise. I have made it quite clear that I have no intention of doing that. I do not take that as the intention. It is important to keep to the point. I treat the issue as a serious one. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.


Gerry St. Germain: I will be guided by the wisdom of the Chair.
The question is this. Will Steering Committee meetings or meetings held in camera be kept in total confidentiality? If they are not, I think it is important that we have a ruling. It comes down to basic respect for this very institution; not the Hon. Members, not myself, the Member for Mission-Port Moody, but the institution. This is what we are concerned about. There have been breaches.
I urge you, Sir, to come forward with a decision on this issue. As standing committees meet daily, it is very important that there is a resolution to this issue so we can operate with a feeling of self-confidence.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are afraid of the truth.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to plead mea culpa, mea culpa. I was not a member of the committee, or present at that particular meeting. I would like to make a few comments.
I take exception to the method by which this particular point of privilege has been raised. The Hon. Member rose as the Chairman of the Committee and indicated that there was a breach of privilege. He also indicated that he was not responsible for speaking to the media. Following that particular Member, a number of other Members of the Conservative Party, and Members of the committee, indicated that they were not responsible for the leak. That is unfortunate, because by process of elimination, the Conservative Party is pointing fingers in the direction of the Opposition. The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), has suggested that the leak came from this side of the House.
December 10, 1986

The issue is whether there was a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member who raised the point did not accuse any particular Member of Parliament as being the source of the leak. Leaks are a way of political life in this institution, and in institutions across Canada at the provincial level. As members of the opposition, we are often in receipt of so-called leaks, or brown envelopes from civil servants, Conservative Members of Parliament, and elsewhere, regarding the confidential activities of either the Government or Ministers of the Crown. When the Conservative Party was in opposition it too was a recipient of leaks, or brown envelopes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has said something that all Hon. Members are very well aware of, that there is constant communication between Members of Parliament, those in the public service, the media and others. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston put his finger on the point when he stated that the issue is whether, under these circumstances, there has been a breach of privilege. This afternoon a lot of time could be spent casting around, going back in history, some of which would be factual, and some of which might be fanciful.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member to come back to the point he so excellently made, that is, that under these circumstances, as the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake put them to the Chair, and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is absolutely right, the Hon. Member who brought the point of privilege did not accuse anyone, has there been a breach of privilege. The point is a narrow one, but it is important. That is, if there was an in camera meeting, and if all Hon. Members entered into that in camera meeting understanding that that was the situation, what is the obligation then on Hon. Members? That is the point. The Hon. Member for York South- Weston has perceived that point perfectly well, and I ask him to continue.


John V. Nunziata: By raising the point of privilege the Chairman of the committee has confirmed the contents of the particular media report, and he has not denied that the media report was inaccurate. By so raising the point, he has confirmed the accuracy of the report.


Fred Alward McCain: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is speaking on a point of privilege. Unless the point of order you are raising is of very great importance, I would prefer that the Hon. Member be allowed to finish his comments.


John V. Nunziata: As I indicated, by raising the point, there is a confirmation of the accuracy of the Canadian Press report. Be that as it may, the question is whether there has been a breach of privilege. There is no question that if there was a leak there has been a breach of trust; the trust that exists between Members of Parliament, whether they are Conservative, New Democratic, or Liberal.
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann
In certain cases there is a need to have in camera meetings of committees. In my view, only in very extreme circumstances should there be in camera meetings of committees. There must be compelling reasons why there should be an in camera meeting. In this particular case, there was obviously a need for an in camera meeting because members of the committee were trying to develop and articulate a committee position on the issue in question.
There is precious little that the Chair can do, if you conclude, as I have concluded, that there was a leak. Was there a breach of privilege? If there was, what does the Chair do? The matter is referred to committee. Do the Hon. Members opposite, and the Member who raised the particular point of privilege, suggest that we should have a type of Senate subcommittee investigation, call in a special investigator, call people before the bar, under oath, and go through a process of cross-examination and investigate each and every Member of Parliament and determine where the leak came from? We cannot do that. In the House we are all considered to be honourable members. An investigation would serve no useful purpose. If a member of the committee stood up and pleaded mea culpa, mea culpa, then we could wrap that person's knuckles, and that would be the end of the matter.
If the Member who raised the particular point of privilege wishes to accuse a Member of Parliament of breaching the privilege, then it should be done up front, and the person should be named. There are consequences that follow if he is wrong in terms of his allegations. But I regret the method by which the Hon. Member, and Conservative Members, by a process of elimination have chosen to point fingers towards the opposition benches.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, should you find that there has been a breach of privilege, I would move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann):
That the matter of the breach of confidence or trust by a Member of the Government Operations Committee in communicating the contents of the committee report to a member of the media prior to its presentation in the House be considered by the committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to assist Hon. Members when I feel that it is appropriate to do so. In these circumstances it is appropriate that the Hon. Member who raised the point of privilege be the Member to actually move the motion. I am sure that all Hon. Members do not mind if the Chair makes sure that what is being done is procedurally sound. If it is the disposition of the House, we can take it that we agree that that is the case.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Everyone agrees.


Cyril Keeper: On what are we agreeing?

December 10, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Holtmann


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should explain. The Hon. Member is asking on what we are agreeing. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rose and made the usual motion in these cases. It actually should have been done by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake. The Hon. Member is in his seat. I see him nodding. I will take it that he has proposed the motion. I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy.
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was seeking the floor a moment ago. I asked him-and he very kindly agreed-to keep his remarks until later because I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, if we as Members of the House cannot trust one another to meet in camera, how can we expect the nation to trust us? If we do not find this to be a subject matter worthy of further consideration in some form which would give us the security of confidentiality, in the eyes of the public we are remiss in our duties.
I find it incredible that we are referring in some instances to brown envelopes which may be received from other sources. That is not at all relevant; it is not to be excused either. I do not admire it, but it is not relevant to the trust which Hon. Members should be able to place in their fellow colleagues, regardless of the Party to which colleagues may belong.
It has been my privilege to be in this sphere of life for quite some time. I must say with pride that at no time have I ever breached the confidentiality of an in camera meeting.


John V. Nunziata: What about caucus?


Fred Alward McCain: At no time have I breached the confidentiality of caucus. You mentioned something about press and its accuracy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Fred Alward McCain: I say through you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: That is much better.


Fred Alward McCain: -that I can make exactly the same claim, regardless of how it may have been printed.


Sergio Marchi: That is not what we heard.


Fred Alward McCain: The gentleman who is interjecting made some comments in respect of the press. I would be inclined to confirm that comment. Therefore, I think he is being rather irrelevant and irascible in his approach to this subject matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members are sometimes irascible and irrelevant. However, I am sure all Hon. Members are conscientiously putting forward points of interest to the Chair.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I will try to be brief. The fact that so many Hon. Members have risen underlines the sense of
importance which they attach to agreements freely entered into by Members of the House. An agreement to enter into an in camera meeting and to keep the report confidential until it is presented to the House is an important commitment. It enables us to conduct public business in a very efficient and effective fashion.
The grounds raised in this question of privilege are well founded, but perhaps narrower than they might have been. In examining the precedents of this and similar chambers, I think Your Honour will find that historically there is some sense of responsibility on the public press to report accurately the doings of a public body such as the House of Commons.
For instance, an article was presented to the House which alleges that an unnamed Member of Parliament provided the particular reporter with information about what went on in an in camera meeting. Indeed, it may be true that that is what happened. However, it is possible that someone who is not a Member of Parliament passed himself off as a Member of Parliament in dealing with the particular reporter. It is also possible, but unlikely, that a reporter uses the words "Member of Parliament" without indeed having attempted to talk to a Member of Parliament. These things are possibilities. Unless we have a motion which would go forward to the appropriate committee to examine the responsibilities of Hon. Members when they freely enter into an agreement to participate in an in camera session of this kind, we have no mechanism which would enable us to sort it out.
It may be that the press has violated the privileges of the House. It may be that a member of the staff, a translator or someone in the room violated the privileges of the House. It may be that indeed a Member of Parliament violated the privileges of the House. If we do not have an affirmative motion and we do not have an inquiry, we are left with those three possibilities, none of which is particularly pleasant to anyone who belongs to any one of the three groups. It cannot be a pleasant situation for the reporter. It cannot be a pleasant situation for members of the committee. It cannot be pleasant for members of the staff who serve so well that and other committees.
In order to clarify the matter and to take off the heads of those three groups the thought of suspicion, Your Honour might be well advised to permit a motion, along the lines indicated by the Hon. Member, to come forward.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to enter into the debate again. However, I should like to make one point. To raise the matter of a leak from the Steering Committee as a matter of privilege assumes that in order to draft the report we had to go in camera. In fact I was surprised that the meeting that morning was an in camera one. I am confident that we can and could have drafted the report without going in camera. I just ask Your Honour to consider that point when you are considering the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all Hon. Members. Of course I will reserve on the matter because the Chair certainly views
December 10, 1986

it as an important point. Hon. Members on all sides are obviously treating it as an important point.
I remind Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, whom I earlier complimented on getting to the point, also said that it may or may not be a question of privilege but that it most certainly was a breach of trust. The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte who has spent many years in the House and many previous years in a provincial legislature is a very experienced parliamentarian. He made exactly the same point.
It seems Hon. Members are asking me to decide-and I think we can agree it is a breach of trust-whether or not the breach of trust under these circumstances is a breach of privilege. I assure all Hon. Members that I will give the matter very careful consideration.
I also want to assure all Hon. Members that I do not take what has been said here as the beginnings of any kind of witchhunt. I think some concern was expressed by some Hon. Members that that is what might come out of this discussion. I want to assure all Hon. Members that I do not take that view at all. I certainly would not encourage that kind of reaction from a debate like this one.
I think all Members are in agreement that when Hon. Members enter into a good faith arrangement to hold the information they have in an in camera meeting, they place themselves in a situation of trust, one with the other. Of course that ought not to be breached. This is why we are called "Honourable Members". We must be able to depend upon the word of an Hon. Member without, as they say, having it signed, sealed and delivered. The Hon. Member's word should be enough.
The Chair will look carefully at the situation and report back to the House as soon as is convenient.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention a piece of information which might make your deliberations somewhat easier. I refer to a decision of Speaker Jerome on October 22, 1975. A draft report of a parliamentary committee on immigration was leaked or made public presumably by one of the participants. It was sent to the appropriate committee for evaluation and came back to Speaker Jerome. He in fact ruled that, because the original motion did not contain the name of an individual person or set of persons, he could not rule that there had been a breach of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for the additional information. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I think this is on another matter?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis POINT OF ORDER



ALLEGED USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I gave you notice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, for a moment, please. Could I ask the indulgence of the Parliamentary Secretary to advise the House that it was my intention to give certain rulings this afternoon. In view of the hour, I will adjourn that and advise the Hon. Members who were involved. The Parliamentary Secretary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason I will make my remarks brief on this question of privilege. I do not want to impede the opposition day either.
I gave you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege as a result of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) during a question that he addressed to the Prime Minister during Question Period today. The Hon. Member made the comment "if he has the courage". I submit that his remarks provoked an uproar and disruption in this House which was undignified and disruptive of the proceedings of the House.
Yesterday the same Member made the comment:
I am sure that, unlike the Prime Minister, he could be sincere.
Which also raised the outcry: "Order! order!"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confine his remarks to events that happened today. The Chair is aware of the exchange with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) yesterday. The Chair examined the blues. The Chair was aware that some Hon. Members were not happy with the exchange, but I must advise that the Chair did not feel, strong as the language and the suggestion might have been, that there was any need to interfere.
We are dealing with another matter today and I will hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and other Hon. Members.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, to continue. Today, the Hon. Member used the words: "if he has the courage." I draw your attention to Beauchesne in two instances. First, Citation 319(3):
In the House of Commons a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge in any reflections on the House itself as a political institution; or to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case;-
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne, Citation 324(1). It reads:
It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order;-
I wanted to read the entire quote, but this point I want to draw to your attention:

December 10, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
-much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether he is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether the words are meant to be applied to his public conduct, or to his private character; and sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the Member speaking had received from the person he alludes to; and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise rules can be adopted with respect to them.
Decorum in this House, Mr. Speaker, is the responsibility of all of us. The first check on decorum is the Member himself or herself and how he or she regards this institution and what respect he or she has for it. That is the first check on decorum.


Sergio Marchi: Respect the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary is making an argument. I am sure that all Hon. Members would want to give him the courtesy of completing the argument without interruption. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, second, failing the responsibility of the Member himself or herself, decorum is the responsibility of the officers of that particular caucus. Each of us has a responsibility to check the decorum of the House. I can tell you without imputing any motives to the Hon. Member that we find no opposition Members' remarks as offensive as the remarks and the conduct of the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie. I say that to Members of the opposition sitting here and I say it to those colleagues who are not here. We find no conduct of any Member of the opposition as offensive as the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.
Lastly, decorum in the House, if it breaks down at the Member's level, if it breaks down at the caucus officers level, is the responsibility of yourself, Sir.
I suggest that today there was a good-natured exchange between the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). It was a good-natured exchange. Each Member went at one another and I think there was a lessening of tension, tension precipitated by the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


An Hon. Member:: You are ragging the puck.


Philip Derek Lewis: I am closing now. These remarks were drafted. I am not ragging the puck on anybody.


Mr. Rossi:: On opposition day, are you obliged to listen to the opposition?


Philip Derek Lewis: I say that the atmosphere in this House is poisoned when that kind of conduct is allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker. I say the relationships between the Parties are poisoned when that kind of conduct is allowed to continue; I say to you that Parliament is poisoned when that kind of conduct is allowed to continue.
This is a place for healthy debate. We are trying to build a country. We do not do it by slandering the reputations of other Members, our Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, leaders of the opposition Parties or anybody. We do it by healthy debate.
It is time that the conduct of this particular Member was examined in detail, that we get back to healthy debate in this place and get rid of slander and slandering reputations.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief. Unlike the Hon. Member I, and I think the country, want to hear the debate on the motion set down by the Liberal Party today with respect to conditions in Alberta. I want to say to the Hon. Member that it is a strange new proposition to suggest to the Speaker that the tone of voice used in debate can be found so offensive by an Hon. Member, can frighten or upset an Hon. Member, that the tone of voice is contrary to the privileges of the House. I am surprised that Members of the Conservative Party are so thin skinned. I do not know what it is that has so disturbed them that if an Hon. Member says: "if you have the courage" in a particular tone of voice it should send the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary into such paroxisms of outrage and concern.
As you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, I think in your first words as Speaker in this House, this is a place for strong and vigorous debate and for strong feelings. I am paraphrasing my recollection of your words, Sir. It would certainly be a very great and serious change in the customs and traditions of this House if it were proper grounds for an acceptable question of privilege to be found on the suggestion that there is something wrong with the tone of voice in which an Hon. Member expressed a point of view. I realize that the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues have a lot at the present time to be sensitive and concerned about. I submit, with the utmost respect, that to try to say that the tone of voice in which remarks are made is a fit subject for a ruling, that the words thereby become unparliamentary, is to extend the concept of unparliamentary language far beyond what has been the case in this House or other parliamentary institutions. I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary could in any way be upset about another Hon. Member, in this case the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) putting into his question the interjection "if you have the courage". All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at Beauchesne and see the words that have been ruled parliamentary: dishonest, false, coward, pig, obscene, untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that in the reading of all those words there will be no encouragement to use any of them.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you for your admonition, Mr. Speaker. I have used them in the abstract, quoting from Beauchesne, whatever temptation I may have to apply them in discussions in this House from time to time.
The point I am trying to make is that surely the word "courage" used in the way the Hon. Member did could not possibly be considered unparliamentary if one compares it with the words actually found to be parliamentary.
I conclude by saying it is very strange for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to get up and make his point today and end
December 10, 1986

it with what can only be a personal attack upon a very distinguished Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie, a former Member of the Quebec Assembly, in light of the words he read from Beauchesne's, Section 319(3), where he said a Member of the House will not be permitted:
-to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular case;
Surely he is doing the very thing he has incorrectly complained about with respect to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie in his unworthy and unwarranted personal attack.
Therefore I respectfully ask you to reject his point of order as being totally unfounded, and perhaps equally, if not more importantly, to call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to apologize for his unworthy, undeserving and totally wrong personal attack on the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to simply add what I think is a very important point. The Parliamentary Secretary stood in his place and went on at some length about the need for decorum and respect from Members. Then he looked across at the opposition and said the Hon. Member in question was the most offensive Member of all of them. When I look in Beauchesne I find that the use of the word "offensive" is unparliamentary. In other words, in his effort to make the House of Commons a more parliamentary place the Parliamentary Secretary was himself using unparliamentary language as defined in Beauchesne. I simply make that point to put the quality of the argument in perspective.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has raised a point of order concerning the use of a word today by the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart). The point the Chair has to decide is whether or not that word is unparliamentary. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said that the Chair should consider the context in which the word was used. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has pointed out that there is a long list of words which perhaps none of us would want thrown at us and which have been ruled as unparliamentary.
I am not going to rule at the moment. I will look very carefully at the "blues". I want Hon. Members to know that the point I am taking is the single and narrow point of whether or not the use of the word "courage" in the context in which it was used is parliamentary or unparliamentary. However, I will say this. Sometimes the difficulty in the Chamber comes not from the use of unparliamentary words at all, but from the use of words in the heat of debate which hurt another person's feelings. When those words are used it invites some kind of retaliation. Sometimes the retaliation is wit, sometimes it is sarcasm, sometimes it is the use of the same kind of word or worse.
I think all Hon. Members will know that decorum in the House depends, not just on staying on the fine line of what is parliamentary, but also on Hon. Members using their best
Statements by Ministers
efforts at all times to not use language which they in their common sense ought to know will hurt or wound the feelings of another Hon. Member.
The Chair will carefully consider the matter and come back to the Chamber at an appropriate time. I have not called upon the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie because the House Leader for the Official Opposition spoke eloquently on his behalf. Unless the Hon. Member has some great feeling that he needs to get into the debate, perhaps that will now conclude the debate. I see the Hon. Member signifying his acceptance of the Chair's suggestion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the true spirit of the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary did refer to the Hon. Member as being offensive. I think it would only be appropriate that he now be asked to withdraw that remark.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said the tactics of the Hon. Member were the most offensive of any Member in the House. That is what I meant to say. If my friend, who has come to his rescue, wishes me to withdraw my remarks that he is the most offensive member of the opposition, I will withdraw my remarks that he is the most offensive member of the Opposition. I will instead suggest that the tactics used by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie are the most offensive of any tactics used by members of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be helpful if the Chair takes the representations made and considers them carefully and we close off the debate. Unless some Member has a specific charge to make, I do not think this will advance the cause of good conduct in this Chamber and it probably is not going to help the Chair very much either.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members that today is the day we commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty-eight years ago, on December 10, 1948 the UN General Assembly set out a comprehensive framework for the rights and freedoms of all people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the celebration of Human Rights Day has a special meaning this year since 1986 is the International Year of Peace.

The inevitable link which exists between human rights and peace is highlighted in the first paragraph of the Universal

December 10, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Declaration of Human Rights. It states that recognition of the inherent dignity, and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
I am glad that 40 years after the creation of the UN, the International Year of Peace has offered us an opportunity to reflect on the conditions for the survival of our rights, and our survival as human beings. On behalf of all Canadians I want to say that we remain as committed to the Universal Declaration now as we were 38 years ago.
Last month Governor General Jeanne Sauve accepted the Nansen Medal from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Jean-Pierre Hocke. The award was not made to any one citizen of Canada but to the people of Canada in, "recognition of their major and sustained contribution to the cause of refugees."
The Nansen Medal was created in 1954 and this was the first time it has ever been awarded to a country. I think that says a lot for the freedom loving spirit for which we are recognized and respected throughout the world. When we talk of human rights in Canada, we mean equality for all Canadians irrespective of gender, language, race, religion, economic status or disability. We in Canada realize the value of a multicultural and multiracial community and the strength it gives to our citizenship and Canadian identity.

For example, Canada's respect for its two main language groups is reflected in the Official Languages Act, which is under intensive review at the moment by the Department of Justice. As well, the Government is considering several very significant improvements to the use of both official languages in our dealings with the provinces, volunteer associations, and the private sector. The President of the Treasury Board is also developing a full range of initiatives to further enhance the profile of our official languages within federal institutions.
In addition to English and French, dozens of other heritage languages are spoken across the nation. In recognition of the cultural wealth that lies in a multilingual identity, the Government supports studies in languages and cultural retention.

We have made commendable strides during the last four decades, but we must go on achieving if we are to expand our concepts of equality and freedom. Although we entrenched our Charter of Rights and Freedoms four years ago in the Constitution of Canada, this was just one major stepping stone of others to come.
As you know, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is funding the Charter Challenge Program through the Canada Council on Social Development. The resolution of specific
Charter cases in the courts will further change and improve our notions of equality and what we have to do to get there.
This is a significant move forward for Canadians. The Government has made a firm commitment to full implementation of the Charter. Clearly, our readiness to confront challenges in matters of fundamental human rights, and to provide the means of ensuring full access to the courts, demonstrates our commitment to one of the key elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to an effective remedy for violations of rights.
Defending an increasing respect for human rights also extends beyond Canada's institutions. This respect must continue to form the solid basis of individual and community life. No greater protection can be granted to human rights than an aware and enlightened public.
The role of the voluntary sector, our hundreds of dedicated non-profit organizations, is especially important in this regard. These groups touch the heart of local communities and directly involve millions of Canadians in their efforts.

On this day, we celebrate the proclamation of the universal declaration of Human Rights. I think it is fitting that we celebrate the many forward steps that we have taken over the last four decades.
I think it is also important that we acknowledge and support the tremendous contributions made by Canadian individuals and organizations in making that progress possible.
Finally, we must use this opportunity to acknowledge that we have a long way to go before we can be completely satisfied with our progress. Our record is good-actually very good- but there is yet some room to grow.
We must therefore maintain our vigilance at home, and continue to exert our influence abroad. We have to think of more creative ways to encourage the human rights cause in countries where they are now merely empty expressions.

Canada's devotion to equality was given even greater credence last March when our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed a proclamation committing Canada to a program of action over the next decade to unite in a stand against racial discrimination. Although this took place quite appropriately during the current International Year of Peace, we are also in the second United Nations Decade to Combat Racism.
Let us hope, therefore, that the fair-minded hearts and souls of Canadians will grow stronger throughout the land, and then influence the global community so that no third such decade need ever be declared.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, if December 7, 1971 was to go down in history as a day of infamy, then December 10, 1948 was a day of hope. On
December 10, 1986

that day, the Untied Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Written by Rene Cassin, a Frenchman who, with his family, personally suffered from Nazi tyranny and understood poignantly the importance of human rights, the Declaration became an ideal and an objective for all nations to seek to attain.
Since that time, Canada has in countless ways shown its desire to conform to those ideals. We have signed the International Human Rights Covenants. We have signed many United Nations special covenants. In fact, we have passed laws and set up human rights commissions across the country. We have proclaimed our opposition to racism and discrimination.
After a prolonged legislative battle in the House, we enshrined these rights in the Charter which now all political parties support and uphold. We are a nation of minorities and, for that reason, we know that human rights are important now to everyone because everyone belongs to a minority. We have not one, but two official languages, both of them equal.
By comparison with most other nations on earth, we have had a superb record of liberty and equality. For this reason we have not been inhibited from speaking out on behalf of oppressed individuals or groups in other countries. That is why it was fitting that we honoured, as the first person ever to become an honorary Canadian citizen, not a person who was great because of his brains, money, power or fame. Last year on this day we honoured Raoul Wallenburg because of his heroism in upholding human rights. That tells us where we have our hearts as Canadians. That is why we have begun to examine our past and try to atone for wrongs imposed on such minority communities in Canada as our native people, Japanese Canadians, those innocent people who have been executed by error, and those who have been persecuted because of their faith or origins.
We know that we have much for which to atone but we must also admit that there is still a long way to go. We must remind the Government that words do not heal the hurt of discrimination and poverty and lack of opportunity. Words will not do. We must remind the Government of its stalling and its lack of political will to root out systemic discrimination, of which the Government's so-called equality Bill is the most obvious cynical example.
Let this human rights day ring in the ears of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), the Minister responsible for multicul-turalism, the Ministers responsible for the status of women and youth, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). In fact, let it ring in the ears of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all members of his cabinet. This day should ring loudly in their ears as they are reminded of the inequality of access to jobs, to training, to post-secondary education for women, handicapped, native peoples, those who are minority groups.
Statements by Ministers
We have a built-in systemic barrier because of the structural barriers to equality which this Government has skirted and evaded. The Government talks of reform by education rather than by law. It is counting on the goodwill of Canadians to do the right thing. That is the Government's alibi for inaction; it is going to count on Canadians to do the right thing. That is just the trouble. The Government has a hands-off approach to human rights rather than a hands-on approach. The reason injustice still exists is because the Government has relied on other people to do the right thing instead of doing the right thing itself.
As the Official Opposition, we pledge to support the Government in whatever measures it brings forward to give everyone- in every region a sense of dignity. We will not support its failure to do this. We will also support Canada's efforts throughout the world when our country champions human rights in the face of oppression and tyranny. Canada has a responsibility to the world community of nations. We are proud of Canada's record, yet we realize we have a long way to go.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join with my colleagues today as we recognize the thirty-eighth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations. In 1948 each and every delegate representing the nations of the world committed themselves to guaranteeing for their citizens all the basic rights and freedoms that centuries have taught us are fundamental to civilization, peace and progress for humankind.
Although progress has been made in achieving the goals set in 1948, most notably in the struggle for decolonization, it must nevertheless be recognized that the grandchildren of those who were the authors of that noble declaration have inherited a world which for many falls far short of the dream. I am talking about that mighty dream of Martin Luther King. It is a costly dream, dreamed until death in the Soviet Union by Anatoly Marchenko. It is a dream dearer than freedom itself for Nelson Mandela, and it is a dream that, to Mahatma Ghandi, represented the culmination of a love shared for all mankind, achievable only by the power of love.
It is not a part of that dream that 128 countries can still be characterized by Amnesty International as being involved in the systematic violation of human rights. It is not part of that dream that children would be imprisoned in South Africa for merely sharing it. It was not part of that dream that the people of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the people of the Ukraine could dream that dream freely only on foreign shores, or that Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Angola and other third world nations should have their right to self-determination compromised by the national interests of others.
However proud we may be as Canadians in accepting the Nansen medal, the refugees arriving on our shores in such numbers are evidence of that unfulfilled dream. When Martin

December 10, 1986
Committee Reports
Luther King said: "I have a dream. Oh, I have a dream", that dream did not mean that people would starve to provide the weapons of war which can destroy the earth.
When I reflect upon human rights in the context of my country, I recognize that here too we fall short of that dream. I find no source of pride in our treatment of the aboriginal peoples, rooted as it is all too often in racism.
Elowever, even though Canada does not represent perfection, I am very proud to be a Canadian. We are a nation only beginning to measure our potential greatness. As a boy I grew up in a different Canada, as someone who was different, but I learned that change is possible in our country when one is determined to be a part of it. That I am now a member of this place is the measure of the extent of the change which has occurred.

As a nation, we are unique in our focus not only on property rights but also, and more fundamentally, on social justice as reflected in the range and humanistic approach of our social programs, and, more obviously, in our Official Languages Act, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and our provincial laws that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, sex, language and physical or other handicaps.

This is a nation which has changed since my childhood into a multiracial and multiethnic nation. We have the potential to be the greatest nation in the world, not because of our might but because we have accepted our diversity and because we will release, through our commitment to social justice, the yet untapped but magnificent potential of our many peoples. We shall be as devoted to the right to freedom, equality and selfdetermination for other nations as we are for ourselves. This is the kind of greatness to be shared with other nations and the kind of leadership this world so desperately needs if that common dream of 1948 is ever to be fulfilled.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today as Chairman of the Standing Committee on
Research Science and Technology to present the first report of the Standing Committee, in both official languages.
The committee has considered the Order in Council appointment of Bruce Howe to the post of Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) which was referred on October 16, 1986. Your committee has examined the qualifications of the appointee and finds him competent to perform the duties of the post.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to state at this point that I dissent in the report of the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that it is our of order for him to do this at this stage.


David Berger: If I may, on a point of order, I would like to share with the Chair my concern about this procedure and with the hearing which was held into the appointment of Mr. Howe to Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret I cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue. The rules do not allow the Hon. Member to comment on a committee report at this stage. However, if the Hon. Member wants to consult with the Table there may be other means by which to do so.


David Berger: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if 1 could explain to the Chair the nature of my concern, I think the Chair might agree that this is a point of order.
The committees of the House, as I understand it, have the opportunity to review an Order in Council appointment within 30 days of the date of the Order in Council appointment. However, it so happens that in this particular case the nominee has not yet taken up his duties as Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Therefore, when he appeared before our committee, he was unable to answer any of the questions which were put to him regarding-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret I cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue. I do not think he has raised a point of order. However, if the Hon. Member has a grievance, the Chair would be willing to consider it if the Hon. Member would be willing to put it in writing. I cannot allow the Hon. Member to comment about the committee. I rule that he has not raised a point of order at this time.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of western Canada who are concerned about the
December 10, 1986

disruption of scientific activity which threatens the economic future as well as the health and safety of Canadians as a result of severe funding cuts to the National Research Council.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who urge the Government to reconsider its plans to proceed with amendments to the Patent Act that will result in increased drug prices to Canadian citizens.



CRIMINAL CODE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (torture).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member 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.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement this day's sitting will be extended by 18 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), since today is the final allotted day the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply Bill. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the supply Bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: That this House notes with deep concern the drastic decline in the oil and gas sector of western Canada, leading to over 25,000 unemployed workers and over 100,000 social welfare cases in Alberta alone; and the serious reduction in farm income and the lack of federal support for manufacturing industries in the western provices; and
Therefore calls upon the Government to institute an immediate meeting of western provincial Governments, farmers, industries and labour to formulate an economic action plan designed to revive western resource, agricultural and manufacturing industries and to put western Canadians back to work.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that due to the vagaries of the parliamentary process I deeply regret that this very important and essential debate will be shortened to less than an hour-and-a-half which, unfortunately, does not allow the full range of debate that is required to give proper expression to these concerns.
We bring this resolution forward to draw to the attention of the House and to the country the tragic and desperate circumstances being faced by western Canadians in a wide range of energy, agricultural and manufacturing sectors. From time to time newspaper reports may appear in the eastern press in this regard, but I do not think anyone fully understands the dimension of the personal tragedy being experienced by so many people, nor the terrible undermining of very fundmental and important industries to Canada.
I would like to begin by recounting to the House by way of example some indications of the depth of despair and the depth of economic tragedy that is beginning to occur. The Government of Alberta recently published a report put out by its Employment Department which indicates that by the end of 1986 over 25,000 workers in the oil and gas sector will be out of jobs. The oil association reports that by 1987 some 70 per cent of the oil-drilling rigs will be idle. The report goes on to indicate that a meagre 28 per cent of employment is forecast on the rigs, the lowest rate in 10 years. It is the worst slump in the development of exploration in the oil and gas industry experienced in the last decade.

December 10, 1986
Supply
The way in which these serious downfalls in the industry translate is perhaps best expressed in personal terms. We know that in Alberta there are over 100,000 people who are unemployed, and the numbers grow by the thousands every month. The exhaustees, those people who will be running out of unemployment insurance benefits, are increasing at the rate of
5.000	per month, and the crunch has not yet occurred. It will not occur until spring, at which time these people will no longer have any form of support. This is, of course, at a time at which the Government has before it the report of the Forget Commission which presents Draconian measures to reduce unemployment benefits even further.
There are over 147,000 people on social assistance in the Province of Alberta. That figure increased at a rate of over
12.000	families in the last year and grows by 600 families a month. By any of these indicators it is very clear that in this one province alone we are facing a kind of drastic and terrible erosion of a once vibrant economy. The question is: What is being done? The answer is: Virtually nothing at all.
That same type of tragedy is being reflected in other sectors of the western economy. At the recent Outlook Conference which took place last week in Ottawa the Government's own economists indicated that the fall in farm income in the Province of Alberta will be 60 per cent. In the Province of Manitoba it will be over 50 per cent, and over 40 per cent in the Province of Saskatchewan. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was making his $1 billion statement the fact of the matter is that that money will only begin to make up a small percentage of the drastic loss in family income that the Government's own economists were projecting back into 1987.
In the area of industrial development and diversification we again know what the facts are. The decision by the Government to go against the clear recommendation based upon the criteria of supply and service on the CF-18 contract took away from western Canada a major opportunity for development of high technology. That incident has caused much anger and indignation right across the West. The results of recent polls show that the people of British Columbia and Alberta share just as deeply the anger and frustration against the federal Government as do the people of Manitoba. A recent report released by DRIE shows that when it comes to providing industrial assistance the Province of Saskatchewan receives S18 million. Assistance to Alberta last year was $16 million. The Province of Manitoba received S30 million. The Province of Quebec received $430 million and the Province of Ontario received $267 million.
The fact of the matter is that westerners are beginning to feel bereft of support by the Government. They feel betrayed by the Government. It is interesting that even members of the Government's own Party are saying this. The Government of Alberta, never known to shy away from supporting its brethren, is now making a variety of statements in the press which indicate that it feels betrayed.
The Prime Minister went to Calgary and said: "Yes, we will help you with the Syncrude plant". A week later, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) said: "I don't think we will help you at all, I have to reconsider it". This led to an angry chorus heard throughout the Province of Alberta and the other oil and gas-producing provinces about a Government that says one thing one day and something very different the next.
What has been the response of the Government? The response can only be described in one word: deception. Rather than responding to those cries for help, the Government is engaging in public relations puffery and, with audacity beyond belief, is trying to incorporate in its accomplishments in western Canada a whole series of initiatives undertaken by the previous Government.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the Calgary Herald issues of December 5 and December 6. The newspaper indicates that a statement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) defending the Conservative record in the West. It makes interesting reading because a great many of the accomplishments listed were initiatives undertaken by the previous Government. Regarding my own province, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his Government is participating in the Winnipeg Core Area agreement. That was initiated in 1981. We got that whole thing started. The newspaper talks about the transportation agreement. We initiated and continued that agreement. Then the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) showed up in Winnipeg on Friday and called a big press conference with coffee, tea, danish, bran muffins and the whole works to announce a transportation agreement that we had signed back in 1983. He said that he would do wonderful things and that he would set up a transport institute. That was announced in 1983. He said that he would help with Churchill. That was announced and carried out in 1983. Every single statement of the Minister of Transport was based upon legal, binding agreements signed and sealed by the previous federal Government.
Anyone who has read the Calgary Herald over the years knows that its sympathy lies generally with the Conservative Party. What does the Calgary Herald say in its editorial comment of December 6? It says:
Nevertheless, Mazankowski misleads in many ways with his rosy version of the Tory western record-
Mazankowski misleads by claiming credit for Liberal programs such as the decision to put up $200 million for the 1988 Winter Olympics-
He misleads by suggesting, without proof, that jobs created in western Canada stemmed directly from federal policies. Would he admit unemployment in western Canada is solely the fault of the federal Government?
The editorial concludes by saying:
Despite Mazankowski's lengthy written submission-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Even though I understand the Hon. Member is reading a document, could I ask him to refer to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) by his title of Deputy Prime Minister?
December 10, 1986


Lloyd Axworthy: I am simply quoting directly from the editorial. If you wish me to translate that, I will say that despite the Deputy Prime Minister's lengthy written submission:
-the actions of the federal Government-in the crunch- suggest that the West has been, if not written off, at least, as the accountants would say, written down.
That is the position taken by those who write for the Calgary Herald. It is informative to note that a newspaper that was once a strong supporter of the Conservative Party is now accusing the senior Minister from Alberta of deception and of misleading the public through the statements he made.
The problem is that westerners do not want that kind of public relations puffery. They do not want the Prime Minister making promises he will not keep. They want some kind of action. They realize very clearly that unless some direct action is taken immediately, the oil and gas industry will be in serious trouble.
I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, today's National Energy Board report which indicates that the present reserves in Canada's conventional oil fields may have a life of only seven to 10 years. Yet all the programs under the Western Accord were cancelled. All the incentives provided for frontier exploration and heavy oil upgrading were cancelled.
Where is Lloydminster? Where is Syncrude? What is happening in the frontier? Everything is closed down in the Beaufort and nothing is happening in Hibernia. There is no assistance being given. Yet at the same time, I read in today's Globe and Mail that the cabinet document that was leaked indicates that the Government is prepared to give a loan guarantee of $200 million to General Motors of Canada, the wealthiest corporation in the world. However, the Government cannot provide loans for western Canadians so that they may go ahead with Syncrude.
What is the difference? Why is it that loan guarantees can be given to General Motors but somehow the oil and gas industry cannot get the same kind of consideration? This is occurring at a time when we have a report indicating that we do not have the proper reserves in our conventional oil and gas fields. We must recognize that within a few years, the countries on the Arabian coast, knowing that countries like Canada have short-changed themselves, will then be able to start raising prices and we will be helpless to respond.
How is it that we can tolerate a downturn in capital investment in this year alone of $4.5 billion? This is particularly surprising because under the Western Accord signed by the Government and the oil-producing provinces, there is a very clear statement in Part I, Clause 9, indicating that if a sharp change in oil prices occurs, a mechanism will be triggered to provide for additional consultation and action. It seems that the Government was prepared to recognize that eventuality since it wrote it into the Accord but it is not prepared to recognize it when it comes to taking action on it.
Supply
We are faced with an incredible vacuum in government initiative causing an incredible growth in welfare and unemployment rates and a lack of investment in the commodities of western Canada. The Minister of Energy has said that he is now taking a hands-off approach.
There is a model that should be followed, one that I applaud in part. The Government recognized that there was a serious economic problem in the City of Montreal, so it put together a blue-ribbon committee involving lots of Ministers. They came up with an economic blueprint to concentrate aerospace, high technology and petrochemicals in Montreal. There is nothing at all wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with the Government of Canada sitting down with the private sector to work out an economic blueprint and to concentrate and focus resources. However, why is this happening only in one region? Why is the Government singling out one area when there are the same kinds of problems being faced in western Canada? There has been not nearly the same effort or commitment there.
What is the difference? In western Canada, there is a recession of incredible depth. Industries are being brought to their knees. Yet we cannot get the same kind of action as Montreal got. That is a question westerners are beginning to ask themselves time and time again.
We know that there are opportunities for development. We know that action could be taken. In the last two or three days, Crow's Nest Pass coal producers have been in Ottawa putting forward a proposal for shipping clean western coal to Ontario. That is a good idea. On both sides of the House, we would support a national economic project. Because of the fact that the Government is negotiating a free trade deal with the United States which incorporates the principle of national treatment that states that there can be no formal program, particularly on freight rates that give a preference to Canadian industry that is not given to industry on the other side of the border, the prospect of bringing that type of coal project to fruition is virtually nil. On the one hand the Government is negotiating with the Americans for economic development, but it is putting a barrier in the way of a $4 billion capital investment which would create 13,000 jobs and give hope to an important energy sector of Alberta because the Prime Minister and his technical advisers have said that we have this principle of national treatment that we must honour. I am sure that the Americans will hold their feet to the fire, because they will not let the Government of Canada introduce a program that will displace their exports.
We know that there is the need for a development framework in the oil and gas industry, and a new set of revenuesharing developments. There must be price stability in that industry. An industry cannot be knocked around like a ball on a squash court and have any hope of development in the future. The Government has refused to act in that area. It is taking no initiative to sit down with the oil producing provinces

December 10, 1986
Supply
and come up with some answers. It says that the Western Accord is enough. The Western Accord is out of date. It is obsolescent. It no longer has any meaning. In fact, it is part of the problem. Is it any wonder that westerners ask, what will we do about it? Is it any wonder that the 25,000 people who are unemployed in the oil and gas sector should not ask, where are the special government programs that will put us back to work until there is a revival in the oil and gas industry?
I remind the House of the period of 1980-81 when the automobile industry was in the same type of crunch, and the previous Government introduced ILAP which provided for job creation and industrial investment in those communities that were badly affected by the downturn in the oil industry. The skilled workers and the industry employees were kept in place, and those communities were kept alive until there was an upturn in that industry. Now the automobile industry is leading the economic growth of this country.
I would say that this is the type of response that could be applied to help those unemployed people, and those people who are going on welfare. This would be direct commitment in the short term, combined with a longer term development that would give stability and prospects of growth back to the oil and gas industry. Again, we have absolutely nothing.
In this resolution we are putting forward a call for coming together under the leadership of the federal Government, provincial Governments, business, labour, and farm groups to work out an action plan for that economy that shows that we are prepared to come to grips with the issues, that we are prepared to recognize that it is an emergency that requires serious and effective application by all levels of Government and by the private sector to work out solutions. That is what westerners expect and demand. That is what we are representing in this resolution.
I hope it is the type of positive suggestion that can be supported by all Members of the House. We are not saying, do not do anything; we are saying that here is a perfectly constructive initiative that is proposed in this House that will give some hope and meaning to the people of the western sector. It will say to them that the Parliament of Canada is responding to their needs; it recognizes the depth of their problems, and the type of energy and focus that is required. This Parliament is making a serious recommendation for the Government to follow. Surely that is the type of recommendation and proposal that all Members of this House can support. It will show westerners that indeed all Parties in Parliament will aid and assist a vital region and put those economies back on their feet, so that once again they can provide leadership and dynamics for economic develpment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) on a question or comment.


Mr. Schellenberger:: The Member who just spoke made the charge that on the CF-18 contract there was no opportunity for a technology update to western Canada. Would the Hon. Member advise me how he can state that when $300 million of
that contract is going to Edmonton, to a firm in my riding, namely, Northwest Industries, which will be dealing with all the work on the CF-18s out of western Canada in the large plant that it has in Edmonton? This will create up to 100 jobs in that area over the lifetime of the contract. It will allow the professional people of Edmonton and the area to have that technology update. It will allow them to continue to participate in the modern repairing of aircraft. Western Canada is participating in this contract in a significant way, except that it is in Edmonton rather than Winnipeg.


Lloyd Axworthy: If that remark is symptomatic of the approach taken by Conservative Members of Parliament from Alberta, then God help Alberta and western Canada. If they are prepared to accept some crumbs because the pot of porridge that was on the table was missed, then it is no wonder that we have this type of tragedy taking place in that province. It is no wonder that the Province of Alberta is not being well served by its Members of Parliament, if that is symptomatic of the attitude. Here we have a western Canadian consortium that won a contract based upon the criteria of competence, cost, and technology, and with political interference it was taken away from them. That process was distorted. Then a small, piddling portion, 5 per cent of that project, is given to another company in another province. It is that type of disunity and fractionalism that hurts and injures western Canada. It is that unwillingness to come together in unison to defend the rights of western Canada and defend its prerogative that is our downfall. The Hon. Member should be ashamed for even standing up in the House and suggesting that that was somehow a fair trade-off. It is an embarrassment to hear that from a Member of Parliament from western Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Tell that to his constituents.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I asked the Hon. Member whether he would justify his statement that there was no transfer of technology to Edmonton. In reply I received a large, protracted statement defending his position.
I would like to ask another question. The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) made a long statement about the weakness of the oil industry. I agree with him that due to international prices, the oil industry in western Canada is suffering dramatically. The oil industry would have been better prepared to handle this downturn in oil prices if approximately $50 billion had not been sucked out of it by the National Energy Program, which that Member and his Cabinet put in place. Now that it is in a weakened state and recovering after the National Energy Program was removed, world prices have intervened. In the meantime, this Government has put in place a number of programs to alleviate those discriminatory taxes. Would the Hon. Member comment on whether he agrees with me that the oil industry would be in far better shape if it had been able to retain that money and not lost it from the western Canadian business sector to general revenue in Ottawa?
December 10, 1986


Lloyd Axworthy: The Member's facts are wrong. He does not know what he is talking about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He sure does.


Lloyd Axworthy: Under the National Energy Program there was a three-way split. Alberta received the biggest cut. Let us talk about who was taking royalties off at a time when oil prices were over $35 a barrel.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Now we hear the real Liberal line.


Lloyd Axworthy: Also the provinces were attempting to share the rents that were being demanded.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are looking pretty silly now.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are they arguing that they will not recapture any of the incredible rent increases for the people of Alberta? Will it all be given to the corporations? Is that what they are arguing? Is the former Minister of Transport saying that he would turn down the money which is now being invested in western grain transportation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are waffling.


Lloyd Axworthy: When he was Minister of Transport, as mouthy as he is, he did not cancel the program. He did not give the money back at that time. He was the Minister of Transport. He could have said: "Hey, this is no good, folks; I will cancel the program and give it back". He had two and a half years in which to give it back. What did he do? He kept the program in place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Answer the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: They should not tell us what we were up to; they should tell us what they are up to. We turned that money around for the economic development of western Canada. He had a chance to do something about it if he did not like it. He did not do it, so he should quit copping out.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my comment relates to the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It is also relevant to what the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) had to say. It concerns the attitude of the Government, not so much toward western Canada as a whole. Obviously from our point of view that is in question as well. However, I am referring to its attitude particularly in respect of Winnipeg. Within the Progressive Conservative caucus there is a tendency to equate the interests of Alberta with the interests of western Canada. Since the 1984 election, the result for Winnipeg has been that we have suffered unfairly in our relationship with central Canada, the latest example being the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair when it should have been awarded to Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg. Also the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will remember only too well when we had
Supply
to stand side by side in the summer of 1985 with other Manitoba politicians, who were mostly New Democrats, to prevent the disappearance of the CN prairie regional headquarters in Winnipeg, to prevent everything in the Prairies from being amalgamated and situated in Edmonton.
Winnipeg is being hit in two different directions. The first is in a national sense in that it is suffering from the politics of Manitoba not having enough clout, or whatever the case may be, and thus losing contracts which should have gone to that city. Also, within the mind-set of the Progressive Conservative Party, Winnipeg is losing out to Edmonton, often for the sake of the kinds of crumbs for which the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin seems ready to settle, in the bowing and scraping attitude of Alberta and Manitoba Tory Members of Parliament toward whoever is calling the shots in the Tory caucus. I invite the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to comment on these points.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. The Conservatives have failed to realize that at the end of 1983-84 we put in place the IRDA program which allowed development of economic blueprints in each province. It was negotiated with business, labour and the provincial Government of each province. It was to provide for a co-operative form of economic development across the country and to ensure specialization for regions so that they could do things better and provide certain advantages. That was to be complemented by development in other provinces. It was negotiated carefully with every provincial Government. All things for which the Deputy Prime Minister took credit were initiated under the IRDA program.
That has been abandoned. There is no regional development program. The Conservative Government is going on the question, as the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) said, of who can muscle whom or who can out-hustle whom in these areas. That is what it is doing rather than trying to provide for a concept of regional development, worked out in co-operation with the private sector and provincial Government of each region, and using federal funds to do it. What do the Conservatives do? They cut back in research and development. They cut back investments in research centres. They cut back the transfer of technology. They have a new research and development program which discriminates against those areas with large corporations that could contribute large amounts of private capital. They do not have a regional development program. They cut back DRIE itself. As a result, the capacity of the federal Government to act as an investor and to work co-operatively has been dismantled, and it comes down to the political shenanigans which the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin is advocating.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. It certainly provides us with an opportunity to explore some of the serious difficulties affecting western Canada. However, I must say that it

December 10, 1986
Supply
takes a lot of gall for the Liberal Party to introduce such a motion. It particularly takes a lot of gall for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) to introduce such a motion, given the kind of attention which he and his Liberal colleagues paid to western Canada, in particular the attack in which they engaged upon the West in terms of the imposition of the National Energy Program. I will get to that a little later.
For the record and to be a little objective, I should like to quote some sources other than the expert from Fort Garry, who probably knows as much about the oil patch as I do about flying to the moon.
On September 8, 1986 the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada indicated that it was very encouraged by the announcement of the federal Minister of Energy that the petroleum and gas revenue tax would be eliminated on October 1, 1986. "The removal of the PGRT is a very positive step in a sequence of events that will restore viability and investor confidence in the oil and gas industry", said John Howard, Chairman of IPAC. Those people know what they are talking about.
Also, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, which represents the heart and soul of the Canadian energy sector, indicated that on October 30, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and the Alberta Energy Minister, Neil Webber, confirmed a major milestone in the deregulation of the natural gas industry in Canada. It indicated that natural gas price decontrol would proceed on November 1, 1986, and went on to outline the importance of that particular initiative.
The Petroleum Resources Communications Foundation also indicated that the announcement of the Minister of Energy that the PGRT would be gone, effective October 1, was most positive, and that the decision would add about $45 million per month to the industry's reinvestment.
I could talk about federal government procurement. The Hon. Member talked about the Liberal record in that regard. Federal government procurement between the fall of 1984 when we assumed office until October of this year increased by almost 20 per cent. The fact of the matter is that improvements are taking place. Much more needs to be done. We recognize that there are difficulties in the energy sector. We recognize that there are difficulties in the agricultural sector.
However, I repeat that the gall of the Liberals in bringing forth this motion as experts on the subject is appalling. Their vindictive policies, hodgepodge of contradictions, and dead-end solutions, supported by the NDP, left the country a legacy of failure and broken dreams. They left the country in a state of anxiety and despair. They left the country divided, a country where the regions felt they were attacked, not supported by the central Government, and a country which was floundering and reeling from crippling interest rates, weak growth, massive unemployment, a burdensome debt, a weak dollar, and a lack of business and investor confidence. That is the kind of legacy
the Liberals left for western Canada, and that is what we are trying to correct.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was the Liberal Government and that western Member who imposed the National Energy Program, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the incremental oil revenue tax, the PGRT, the oil export tax, the Canadian ownership service charge, the petroleum compensation charge, and there may have been others which I may not remember. However, that myriad of taxes stole or extracted $60 billion from western Canada, from Alberta in particular, and he had the gall to say that we were not looking after the West. We have cut that off. In the last two years they were in office, they extracted $9.25 billion from the Province of Alberta under these taxes. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? They are all gone now; they are not there any more.
With the phase-out of the PGRT in 1986 the federal Government will get some $500 million from the energy industry. With the complete phase-out, it will be next to nothing. That is what we have been doing. That is what we have to do. The Liberal Government imposed the 25 per cent retroactive back-in. What did this do to the oil industry?
The Hon. Member is talking about a loss of 25,000 jobs. Yes, indeed, we are very concerned about that. But do you know what this man-made Liberal political crisis did to western Canada, Mr. Speaker? There was a loss of 50,000 jobs and half of the oil rigs left the country and went south of the border. Yes, the Liberals ripped $60 billion off the Province of Alberta. It was they who drove investment from Canada, and in 150 days after the National Energy Program it was they who caused the loss of 35,000 jobs. As a result of the National Energy Program, $10.2 billion of direct capital investment left Canada. In 1981, that was made up of $5.3 billion in foreign capital and $4.9 billion in domestic capital. If that $10.2 billion had stayed in Canada and had been invested here, it would have created 409,000 jobs. That is the situation we inherited.
It was the Liberal Government that imposed upon Canada the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which also contributed to de-investment in Canada. It was that group of gangsters over there who managed to allow interest rates to creep up to 22.75 per cent. That is what the prime rate was in August, 1981. That hurt farmers, small businessmen, the oil sector, everyone.
This Member now poses as the great saviour of western Canada. I have in my hand a copy of the Winnipeg paper, The Tribune, for Wednesday, March 19, 1980. It reads:
Axworthy aims to make Government a force in West.
He said that he was going to spell out a clear industrial strategy for the West in the next four years. Some strategy, Mr. Speaker. The strategy was to transfer billions of dollars
December 10, 1986

from western Canada to the federal coffers. He used western Canada as a cash cow. That is what we have been used for in Alberta. The Liberals talk about their new-found awareness of western Canada. The Liberal Party has just had a convention. They talked about addressing the regional needs of Canada. But there is no Member on the Liberal national executive from Manitoba, no Member from Alberta, and no Member from Atlantic Canada. That is a real national party. I say it takes a lot of gall for Liberals to pose as the experts on western Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No wonder there is only one Liberal in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No wonder there is only one Liberal in the House. The Liberals ran this country for 20 years and ran it into the ground.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am listening to my delightful colleague's presentation and enjoying most of it. I just want to bring to his attention that he referred to the lack of presence of Members in the House of Commons which he knows, as we all know, is inappropriate during a speech. Regardless of all the ohs and ahs, we look to leadership from the Government House Leader. I ask him to continue as we always do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. I was not referring to any specific Member. I will repeat once again: There is one Liberal Member and one New Democratic Party Member in the House, and that should be on the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I presume that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is coming back to the same point of order to the effect that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is referring to the presence of absence of Members.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am also going to serve notice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister did not refer to the specific absence of a specific Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe by your observation, and we will examine Hansard tomorrow, that the Deputy Prime Minister did not refer to any specific Member but did, in fact, indicate there was only a specific Member in the House of Commons. By implication that means there are no others, that there were no other New Democrats and no other Liberals. I want to serve notice that I will be raising this matter as a question of privilege.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this point because I want to hear the Hon. Member's speech. By and large it was a good speech. He is the Government House Leader. It is he to whom we look for leadership and guidance, and I ask him to give it.
Supply


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You will certainly get that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to take strong objection to the point made because I am here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The point that I think we all want to make is that there has to be a certain amount of give and take and a certain amount of sincerity. There are now two Liberals and two New Democrats in the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We double every 10 minutes. Watch yourself.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I am not the one to lecture the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), but if the Deputy Prime Minister is to start that ball game, he knows me well enough to know that, being here as I am five days a week at any time, I can start counting. It is a game that is very bad for the spirit of the House. May I kindly ask the Deputy Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to stop referring to how many Members are here at a particular time. There are plenty of Members having coffee in the lobby.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: It is not the Minister's style of debating. We will be lowering the style of debating in the House by counting Members. He knows that we will be here for at least two more years and there will be plenty of occasions when this could backfire. I wish that the Minister would proceed with debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate with the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the interventions of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Prud'homme), particularly his lecture. This is an important debate and I think it should command the presence of a lot of Hon. Members.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Maybe it is a reflection of what we think of your speech.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I suspect that if it were not for Members on the Conservative side we would probably have difficulty maintaining a quorum.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Maybe it is what you are saying, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think it should be put in that context because the Hon. Member who introduced the motion had a perfectly legitimate reason for doing it. We are happy to debate the issue and are happy to set the record straight.

December 10, 1986
Supply
During the course of the Liberal Government which was in power for 20 years, it did nothing to help diversify the western economy. Hon. colleagues will remember one time back in November, 1980 when there was something known as the western economic development fund which was worth $4 billion. It was supposed to be worth that. It was a vanishing $4 billion. The Hon. Member who introduced this motion said this, as appears at page 4417 of Hansard for November 4, 1980:
Further, we would like to point to the introduction in the Budget of the western development fund. It is designed to take the proper profits and revenues deriving from resources and recycle them back into western Canada to provide a much more diversified economic base.
The Liberals took the revenue and they recycled it back here, but it never got back to western Canada. The $4 billion western economic development fund just vanished into thin air. So much for the commitment of the hon. gentleman.
We had a further reminder of that. At page 5128 of Hansard for November 27, 1980 the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said:
We are talking an economic and industrial strategy for western Canada-
The Liberals had 20 years, not four years or two years, but 20 years, to diversify the economic base of western Canada.
We are taking steps to do that. There was a commitment in the Speech from the Throne and we are going to do that. Liberal policies created high inflation and high interest rates. Let us talk about farm prices. In 1984 when we were fighting the election campaign, farm prices were at the lowest level since 1938. That is the Liberal record. They failed to respond.
What the Hon. Member is suggesting in his motion is that we should have some meetings and a conference. The Liberals had a Western Economic Conference with a lot of fanfare and hoopla. There were a lot of recommendations but nothing was done. Under the LIFT program they were paying western farmers not to grow wheat. Can you imagine anything so absurd? The National Energy Program crippled western Canada. The Liberals dismantled the Crow. As a matter of fact, if they were in office today rates would probably be around $11 per tonne. We rolled them back and froze them at $6 a tonne. Neither can we forget what else they did with the NEP. They defeated our Government in 1980 over 18 cent gas. Rather than getting 18 cents from the Conservatives we get $1.13, mainly in taxes from the Liberals. They destroyed cooperative federalism in this country. Remember the statement back in 1980? "Co-operative federalism is dead". Who made that statement? Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The Hon. Member who moved this motion was a member of that Government.
He talked about the coal deal. They had 20 years to put together a deal to move coal from western Canada to Ontario. We now have a Liberal Government in Ontario, and I would hope the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would use his good offices to encourage Mr. Peterson to cooperate with us in order to facilitate the movement of coal from western Canada to Ontario. It is a good deal for Canada. It is a good deal for western Canada, Ontario, and the environment. Yet we are not getting any co-operation from the NDP or the Liberals in moving ahead with the National Transportation Act. That is vital. If we are going to bring down the unit cost of transportation, that is a must. I hope the House Leader for the NDP will consider that.
The motion before us is interesting for what it says, but more interesting for what it does not say. There is absolutely nothing constructive. It proposes nothing but asks for an immediate meeting. I just went through some of the resolutions bandied about at the Liberal convention. There certainly is nothing there which might be helpful either. They want deficiency payments for agriculture. We have delivered. They want policies developed to reduce the cost of fertilizer, chemicals and other farm inputs. One of the first things we did was to remove the farm fuel tax. We have probably the cheapest farm fuel of any producing nation in the world, thanks to the initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The reason we are doing things in the agricultural industry is that this Prime Minister, unlike the two previous Prime Ministers, cares about agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That was evidenced by his visit to the Outlook Conference. He was the first Prime Minister in the history of this country to attend an agriculture outlook conference. I see sadness among the NDP because they said, "Oh, no, Mulroney won't deliver. Wise won't deliver." Then they said, "Yes, he will deliver but only in the form of a loan. It would have to be tied to some diversion of acreage or another LIFT program". Then it was going to be an interest-free loan. They tried to mislead, perhaps not intentionally, the farmers of Canada. They tried to create anxiety and fear. Then they tried to attack the credibility of the Prime Minister. I will tell you that this Prime Minister has delivered on agriculture just as he has delivered on energy. He has delivered for the West. He will continue to deliver because he cares about the West and he cares about Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let us talk about unemployment in western Canada. Let us look at the record. The Hon. Member promotes his Leader as "Honest John", a great guy, builds on the Liberal record. Here is the Liberal record on unemployment in western Canada. In Manitoba in 1980 when they last took office, the unemployment rate was 6 per cent. When they were kicked out in September, 1984, it was 9 per cent. In Saskatchewan it rose from 3.9 per cent to 8.5 per cent. In Alberta it rose from 3.9 per cent to 12 per cent. Four years of Liberal rule gave Alberta an increase in unemployment from 3.9 per cent to 12 per cent. In B.C. it doubled from 7.5 per cent to 15.2 per cent.
December 10, 1986

Let us now look at the Conservative government record. In Manitoba the rate fell from 9 per cent to 8.4 per cent. In Saskatchewan it fell from 8.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent. In Alberta it fell from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. In B.C. it fell from 15.2 per cent to 13.3 per cent. Some 135,000 new jobs were created, not by the Government, but because we created a climate conducive to the private sector creating new jobs and new opportunities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will tell you what else the Liberals did in those last four years. This is the root cause of all the problems we face in this country: they chalked up $126.7 billion worth of deficits. It was $13.5 billion in 1980, $14.8 billion in 1981, $27.7 billion in 1982, $32.4 billion in 1983, and $38.3 billion in 1984. How is that for a record? You know what we are doing? We are turning it around.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It has been brought down from $38 billion to $32 billion, and it will be down to $30 billion next year. As a result, interest rates dropped by 4 percentage points.
I will conclude with this comment from the C. D. Howe Institute. They said that "In the first two years of its electoral mandate, the federal Government has made progress on many economic issues and has begun to face some of the fundamental and long-standing problems of the Canadian economy. Staying on course offers the best opportunities for long-term growth of the Canadian economy". It will work in Canada, Mr. Speaker. It will work in the West. We will create jobs and opportunities and a satisfying future for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) for approximately 20 minutes but we did not hear one recommendation, one idea or one intention of the Government with regard to the energy sector in western Canada. All we heard was a 20-minute attack on Liberals, past and present. If the Government has any intention of doing anything for the energy sector, it has had plenty of time today to say what it was going to do.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agrees that further help is necessary for the energy sector. He said on November 24 that the federal Government is "going back to the drawing board to help Canada's oil industry". The drawing board must be in the Himalayas because we have not seen any action or initiative. The Government backed away from the Husky upgrader. In its Supplementary Estimates the Government had allocated $20,400,000 for the upgrader in Regina. Some $9,400,000 was for development engineering, preliminary studies and other work. Some $11 million of that $20,400,000 was a contingency fund in case the project did not go ahead.
Supply
What about Syncrude? It has been talked about so intensely in western Canada in the last few months. The Government said it is going to get involved. The Premier of Alberta said that he expected an answer by Tuesday. Now he says he is going to get an answer by Christmas. This is a good time. Why not tell the people in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, what he will do to help the Syncrude project?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry that the Hon. Member missed the point. We have been trying to undo the damage the Liberals did while they were in office, particularly in the last four years. It has been a very serious matter.
The fact is that by putting together the Western Accord and dismantling the National Energy Program, in 1985 we established record energy activity in western Canada with some 11,273 wells drilled. There was $10.5 billion worth of new investment put into that sector.
The rapid decline in oil prices was not created as a result of this Government's policies, but as a result of the economic and pricing discipline half-way around the world. Of course, we must respond and, as a result, the PGRT removal was accelerated. It is estimated that this alone will activate some 540 wells. In total, some $3 billion in tax relief has been provided to the energy sector.
I indicated that the Liberals extracted $9.25 billion in the last two years of their regime. We have cut that to almost nothing. The 25 per cent retroactive claim that the Liberals put in place was very offensive to the oil industry. It is gone.
One need only look to IPAC or the Canadian Petroleum Association to see that we are fulfilling the kinds of policies that they suggest will reactivate and re-energize the energy sector. We are providing support for the Husky upgrader. The engineering studies and the determination of the final estimates process is proceeding and we have contributed $36 million in direct aid.
We have not backed away from Syncrude. The negotiations are continuing and we are studying the proposal that we received only a week ago today, or tomorrow.
We have deregulated the gas industry, which not only helps consumers but gives the gas producers in western Canada an opportunity to explore markets which they did not have. This is good for farmers because it will eventually reduce the price of fertilizer. It is good for Canada, the industry and consumers.
Most important, we have created a positive investment climate. We have brought down the interest rate, which was the major killer in the energy and agricultural sectors. Not only is there business confidence, but investor confidence is at an all-time high. This global influence is very important and does not apply only to the energy sector but affects also the economic well-being of Canada as a whole.

December 10, 1986
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated a real concern about resolving the problems of unemployment in western Canada and doing whatever is possible to encourage economic development and expansion. Ele referred specifically to the Liberal proposal, which had existed for probably their entire mandate of 20 years, to move western Canadian low sulphur coal to central Canada to be used both by Ontario Hydro and the steel companies. Has the Government decided whether it will take some initiative in this regard and discuss it with the Ontario Government, by implication Ontario Hydro, and specifically with the steel companies throughout Ontario?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Yes, we have met with officials of Ontario Hydro. I was to meet with senior officials last week but as a result of a storm, they were unable to attend. The meeting has been rescheduled for December 17.
Premier Peterson has agreed to meet and we are looking for an appropriate date. I have not discussed the matter with the steel industry. We sense that there is at least a willingness on the part of Ontario Hydro to explore the matter, which we are certainly doing.
I have personally taken an interest in this and we hope to cover all of its aspects, not only from a surface transportation point of view. I see the Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). He would also be very interested because this would clearly be a way to encourage and increase traffic on the Great Lakes water system. That is another spin-off aspect that would be beneficial to the whole country.
There is no question that there are some obstacles, but it is certainly the kind of project that I think deserves the support and co-operation of all. I appreciate the Hon. Member's support in that regard.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will comment on the context of a portion of the motion which calls upon the Government to institute an immediate meeting of western provincial Governments, farmers, industries and labour. As recently as the end of last month there was a First Ministers conference which certainly provided the opportunity for western Ministers to express their concerns. We should not forget that the Prime Minister has annualized the First Ministers conferences so that there is little value in proposing something that has already taken place, except to point out that the Liberals have failed to recognize it.
Furthermore, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that for the first time in history a Prime Minister of Canada appeared before and addressed the three major agricultural groups of Canada. He gave a very positive message that was positively received by the agricultural community, with the only negative response coming from the CBC.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on the introduction to a book entitled The Sorcerer's Apprentices written by Peter Foster. Let me quote the following passage from the introduction:
When the Liberals defeated the short-lived Government of Joe Clark in February, 1980, they promised lower petroleum prices than the Conservatives, Canadianization of the oil industry, and energy security through self-sufficiency in oil. Two and a half years later, they had delivered the highest petroleum price increases in Canadian history, a financially crippled Canadian sector of the oil business, and a more uncertain supply future than at any time since the first OPEC crisis of 1973-74.
He went on to say that in the shape of energy megaprojects they held to ransom and injured the Canadian-U.S. relations more than any other policy in living memory. He went on:
Why did the public provide such overwhelming support for such a disastrous policy?-beause they did not understand-and were misled-about its true nature; second, because they supported the principle, but had no idea of the implications of the Canadianization of the oil business as proposed by the NEP-
Would the Deputy Prime Minister care to comment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member raising those questions. The first one concerned the substance of the motion and the recommendation that a meeting should be convened. I believe that all Hon. Members and all Canadians are aware that the style and substance of the Government has been to consult and work together with provincial Governments and industry. I do not believe that there are any other areas that illustrate this more than in the two areas of agriculture and energy that we are discussing here.
When the Prime Minister announced that the billion-dollar assistance package would be worked out with the provinces and the producers of Canada, he meant it. This was carried out. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) met on numerous occasions with their counterparts from provincial Governments and met on numerous occasions with the farmers. That is why we see the program that was announced yesterday so widely accepted by the producers. I care what the producers say about it, not the CBC. It is widely accepted by the producers because they have played a role in developing the package. I believe that is very important.
Members opposite, particularly the Liberals, have criticized the Government for consulting too much. We recognize that this process may take somewhat longer, but at least the right solutions are found. When we addressed the problems of energy in Alberta we did not do it unilaterally. We did not unilaterally impose a national energy program, we worked out the Western Accord with the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and the industry.


Mr. Orlikow:: What is happening now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member is asking me what is happening now. If he had been in the House he would know because I gave a complete expose of what is happening.
December 10, 1986


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak in this debate concerning western Canada. This is the time of year when the people of western Canada are buoyed up. They are feeling good about the world and themselves. It is the time of year when one thinks about the holiday season. However, I must say that in western Canada today people are feeling rather grim. There is a feeling of pessimism and in some quarters, I would say, it touches on resentment. There is a feeling of despair as a result of the economic tragedy which has struck western Canada. They look forward to the next two or three years and wonder about their children and their friends. There is a sense of uncertainty, of frustration and a certain fear of the future. Over the last little while, despite a number of actions taken by the Government, there has been nothing done to really set those fears and frustrations aside.
I must say that I could apply my speech to the former Liberal Government as well considering what it did to western Canada. My constituency, unfortunately, was the part of Canada which received the index finger from the then Prime Minister. We have never forgotten that. It was symbolic throughout all of western Canada of a betrayal. It showed how the Liberal Government actually felt about western Canadians. We recall with horror the 22 per cent interest rates which existed for western Canadian businesses, homeowners, farmers and ranchers. We remember the western development fund which was heralded as the $4 billion initiative fund to encourage business in western Canada. It evaporated into thin air. We never saw the western development fund. We never heard about it after it was first introduced in this House as a concept. That again showed just to what extent the Liberal Government of the day was committed to the people of western Canada and their concerns.
I find it incredible when I consider the plight of western Canadians and the fact that the Liberals had virtually 20 years in public office to meet many of their concerns and to respond to them. Quite frankly, that Government did very little. I think it would be too simplistic to say that it did nothing; it must have done something, but the treatment western Canadians received at the hands of the former Liberal Government was rather pathetic. Things have not changed very much.


Mr. Hopkins:: Can you not write a new speech?


An Hon. Member:: We've heard that one before.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My Liberal friends say it sounds as if I had said this before. Indeed I have, and I will say it again. For the next two years, up until the next federal election, I plan to say it at every opportunity I get just to remind people that a swing back to the Liberals means going back in time to the old days, which were not the good old days. Those times were very tough for western Canadians, and I want to make that perfectly clear.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The dark ages.
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: But let us talk about the present Government. Has it provided leadership in terms of changing things for the better in western Canada? No.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Has it shown a new sense of commitment? No.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Wrong questions, wrong answers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is getting late in the day and obviously there are opposing views to those questions. Let us consider what the Government has done. There was an aid package for farmers. There was an aid package for the ranchers in western Canada who experienced drought conditions. There was a rescue package for the banks which collapsed. In other words, the actions taken by the Government for western Canadians have been bail-outs, rescue packages or programs in terms of disaster funds. It has tried to cut the losses of western Canadian producers in one commodity or another. These are rescue packages; bail-outs. They are reactive programs, not proactive programs.
Western Canadians do not want hand-outs. They do not want to receive welfare from the federal Government. They do not want giveaways. They want a strong economy on which they can build for the future of their children and their children's children. They want to see some leadership from the Government. They want to see some action instead of reaction, which is all they have seen so far. The Government reacted to a troubled banking industry, to a troubled farming industry, to a troubled forest sector and fisheries sector.
Where is the leadership? Where are the programs which will help western Canadians carry on and contribute to the development of Canada? We have seen that action in other parts of our country. I want to be very specific because I realize that often we can describe situations and people will ask: "What is your factual information to substantiate that allegation?" I simply have to look at one of the most important arms of Government in assisting economic industrial development, and that is DRIE.
When one looks at the amount of funds which have been distributed since the Conservative Government took office, a very interesting picture is revealed. For example, the amount of industrial assistance between September, 1984, and March, 1986, for British Columbia was $47 million. Saskatchewan received $18 million; Alberta received $16 million; Manitoba received $30 million; the Yukon received $3 million. Those amounts total $114 million. Interestingly enough, an area of similar population, Quebec, received not $114 million but $430 million. Ontario received $260 million. When we consider areas of relatively equal population, that is setting apart any discussion about the difficult economic times these various regions face, western Canada has received significantly less of the DRIE funds than either Ontario or Quebec. I want to use that very specific example as a criterion upon which we can

December 10, 1986
Supply
decide for ourselves whether the Government is committed to the western region of Canada.
There have been rumours lately. In fact, a document was leaked from Cabinet just a few hours ago which indicated that the Cabinet is considering giving special help to another industry, namely, General Motors. I wonder to what extent General Motors needs financial help from the Government of Canada? The leaked document indicates that the Government is planning to give perhaps $200 million to General Motors. I would like to remind Hon. Members that all of western Canada combined, including the territory of Yukon, received $114 million over the last two years. The Government is now considering giving General Motors $200 million. That puts the whole issue of western Canada into perspective in terms of how the Government is treating western Canada.
Let us look at some of the actions the Government has taken in western Canada. It has come up with $1 billion to bail out the two western banks which failed. I suggest that had proper and appropriate consideration been given to that region, those two banks would not have collapsed and that bail-out would not have been necessary. Rather than giving $1 billion to the uninsured depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, if the same financial commitment had been given to the farmers, the small oil and gas companies, the forest sector, the mining sector and the small business sector in western Canada, those banks would not have collapsed and that bail-out would not have been necessary.
When we consider the CF-18 maintenance contract we see that 75 out of 75 experts who advised the Government on the company and, by implication, the area to which it should be awarded, agreed that it should go to Bristol Aerospace in western Canada. Did that $1.5 billion contract go to western Canada? No, it went to Montreal. It went to Canadair. The other day we learned that one of the reasons it did go to Canadair was to sweeten the pot so that when the Government sold off Canadair to Bombardier, Bombardier would be more interested in making the deal.


André Bissonnette: Montrealers will remember that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: which left it virtually at the mercy of the free market forces. That is where we are now. We now have provincial Governments, large oil companies, small oil companies and exploration companies crying out saying: "Let us do away with this notion of the free market. We want help, intervention and support".
We as New Democrats have been consistent. We have said that we support the establishment of a floor price to be paid to producers for their first 500 barrels of production, a policy which would primarily benefit, not the large multinational integrated oil companies, but the independent Canadian-owned sector and result in only very modest price increases. This particular pro-active move would give a strong support base and send a very clear signal that the Government of Canada is interested in supporting the small producer and the small exploration companies in this critical sector.
We have seen an interesting government initiative in the Province of Manitoba. I refer to the CF-18 maintenance contract not being delivered to that province, with a small token going to the Edmonton area. I emphasize that it is but a token. We do not want to get too caught up in enthusiasm simply because we in western Canada were tossed out a bone.
Last week we heard about the close-down of a packing plant in Winnipeg with a resulting loss of 475 jobs. This company was given a federal government grant recently to assist in the opening of a hog-slaughtering plant which will employ 110 workers in total. So we see a net loss then in that industry of 365 jobs. On the one hand the Government is creating competition here and on the other it is closing down plants there. We saw the same thing in western Canada with the federal Government providing all types of assistance and tens of millions of dollars to develop the northeast coal fields in British Columbia. It did so only to find out later that the mine had been developed in the wrong place. Nevertheless, after a great deal of infrastructure was put in place and tens of millions of dollars were allocated, what the Government did was to put the northest coal fields of British Columbia in direct competition with the southeast coal fields of British Columbia and the southwestern coal fields of Alberta. I believe the Government now has virtually a moral obligation because of its actions in terms of northeastern British Columbia to do whatever it can to help the industry in southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta get back on its feet. The I movement of coal to central Canada on an expanded basis i would be one way to show its good intentions in that respect.
I wish to close my comments by saying that when we look at the economy in western Canada today we see a very serious economic tragedy occurring in the Province of Alberta. Just the other day the Alberta Government announced its solution to the whole problem. Its solution as announced on November 17 is to bring about drastic cuts in provincial government expenditures. It is asking various Departments to cut back by 25 per cent in terms of expenditures. Again, that is the typical Conservative response to difficult times. I have never seen a business or a farmer yet who was able to expand into new
Supply
productive areas by cutting back on investment. What the Government must do in western Canada is to start investing in western Canada. It must consider the introduction of agribonds and parity pricing to help the hard-pressed agricultural sector. It must provide more assistance to the forest sector in terms of silviculture and reforestation projects. It must provide more support to the municipalities to allow the large and small ones in western Canada to get on with the development of urban infrastructures by putting large numbers of Canadians back to work. It must get on in terms of the Polar 8 icebreaker contract. It must consider ways and means of putting money into the hands of small businesses, primarily through improvements in federal government procurement programs.
When we look at federal government procurement programs we see that in terms of goods and services the federal Government's needs are filled almost exclusively by central Canada. While there have been marginal improvements in the last two years, a great deal more is needed. Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia has been crying out, as have British Columbians for many, many years, that now is the time for the federal Government to show its support by sourcing more goods and supplies from western Canadian producers and suppliers.
There are many things the federal Government can do. There are many programs that could be implemented and steps that could be taken. Considering the very difficult times that are being experienced by the four western provinces and the northern Territories, the Government ought to turn its full attention to that part of Canada. It simply ought to treat western Canada with the same kind of commitment and enthusiasm with which it has treated other regions. All we ask is for fair treatment, nothing more but certainly nothing less.
Premier Getty of Alberta, Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia, the whole list of Socred candidates who were running for leadership and Premier Pawley of Manitoba all have the same theme. It is time the Government listened to them. They are saying that they feel betrayed and let down. They are saying that the federal Government has turned its back on them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Hon. Member's speaking time expired a while ago, and he is now trying to take up extra time so we won't have a chance to comment and correct a number of erroneous statements he made since he started his speech.

December 10, 1986
Supply
[English\


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to provide the House with ample time. I noticed that I began my speech just after 21 minutes to six. It seems now that in a matter of seconds, my 20 minutes will be up. Perhaps I will take my seat and provide the Hon. Member an opportunity to ask me a question.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since it is well known that the NDP Party was a willing accomplice in the rape of the West by the Liberal Party-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have made reference on previous occasions to the offensive use of references to the NDP Party. We are not having a party here, we are engaged in the business of Parliament. If the Hon. Member wants to refer to my caucus, I suggest that he be directed to refer to the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

Order. It being 6:03 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(10).

Accordingly, the question is on the motion of Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. Rossi:
That this House notes with deep concern the drastic decline in the oil and gas sector of western Canada, leading to over 25,000 unemployed workers and over 100,000 social welfare cases in Alberta alone; and the serious reduction in farm income and the lack of federal support for manufacturing industries in the western provinces; and
Therefore calls upon the Government to institute an immediate meeting of western provincial governments, farmers, industries and labour to formulate an economic action plan designed to revive western resource, agricultural and manufacturing industries and to put western Canadians back to work.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1986-87
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987 laid upon the Table Tuesday, November 18, 1986, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-29, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-29, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
On Clause 2-
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can assure the House that this Bill is in the usual and proper form. Can he give us that assurance now?
Supplementary Estimates


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Bill is presented in the same form as the Bills adopted in previous years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I forgot to bring a copy of the Supplementary Estimates with me. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether there is anything at all in the Supplementary Estimates about the ordering of new transcontinental railway passenger cars.


Marcel Danis: The Chair must rule the question out of order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the clause?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division.
Marcel Danis: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall the Preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the Title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall I report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time? By leave now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6.38 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 11, 1986