1987-03-23

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling the 1985-86 Annual Report as provided under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(4), this report is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions nos. 332-882, 332-884 to 332-892 inclusive, 332-917, 332-921, 332-922, 332-984, 332-985, 332-994, 332-996, 3321017 to 332-1055 inclusive, 332-1 105 to 332-1109 inclusive, 332-1128, 332-1186 to 332-1194 inclusive, 332-1209 to 3321211 inclusive, and 332-1215 to 332-1223 inclusive.



GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 96(2) I have the honour to present the
second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, in both official languages.
The report addresses itself to concerns regarding Canada Post's future plans for small rural post offices. The committee is of a strong view that Canada Post will not solve its fiscal problems by closing rural post offices or changing rural postal service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: Canada Post should look elsewhere for savings in its operating budget. No closures of rural post offices or change in postal service should be undertaken without meaningful consultation or consent of the community affected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: The local Member of Parliament must have the option of being an integral part of the consultation process and must be informed immediately of any closures or changes in rural post office services.
The committee intends to continue to exercise its mandate under Standing Order 96(2) to review and to report to the House from time to time on the operational plans of Canada Post.
A government response is requested under Standing 99(2).
On behalf of the committee I wish to express my appreciation for the co-operation of the Minister responsible for Canada Post who met with the committee. I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the witnesses who appeared before it.
I also take this opportunity to thank the representatives of all three Parties for their efforts in drafting this unanimous report in the true spirit of parliamentary reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions which I would like to present today. The first deals with the amendments to the Patent Act. The

March 23, 1987
Introduction of Bills
petitioners from my riding of Winnipeg North Centre point out that the changes in the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petition concludes by calling upon the Government to withdraw the legislation that is before the House.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present has to do with postal service. The petition points out that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs and deterioration in service of the Post Office at the expense of the Canadian consumer. The petition states that the proposed measures have already resulted in the closure of many rural post offices and the cancellation of rural routes. The petitioners protest the postal rate increases and call upon the Government and Canada Post to pursue revenue-generating services such as electronic mail and parcel delivery to obtain financial selfsufficiency.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an Act to amend the National Defence Act (death penalty).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (mo)


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor today a Bill which is entitled "An Act to amend the National Defence Act". The purpose of the Bill is to amend the National Defence Act in order to remove all references to the death penalty for offences committed under the Act. A sentence of life imprisonment would replace all references to the death penalty.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in 1976 this Parliament abolished the death penalty as far as the Criminal Code of Canada was concerned. The death penalty continues to exist in the National Defence Act and, as I indicated, the purpose of this Bill is to make the National Defence Act consistent with the Criminal Code of Canada. Capital punishment is wrong, whether it is in the Criminal Code of Canada or in the National Defence Act. Capital punishment is morally wrong whether it is done by hanging or by firing squad under the provisions of the National Defence Act.
Capital punishment is the mark of an indecent, uncivilized and immoral society. I regret very much that the Government is embarking upon a very divisive and emotionally charged debate on the issue of capital punishment with regard to the Criminal Code of Canada.
In closing I wish to indicate that the last time an individual was executed under the provisions of the National Defence Act was in 1945 during the Second World War. In the First World War 26 Canadian soldiers were executed by a firing squad for breaches of the provisions of the National Defence Act. This Bill will eliminate that possibility in future.


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

[ Translation]

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a point of order on Friday which I wish to pursue now. I did not feel it was appropriate to pursue it on Friday since it was a Liberal opposition day. This point of order specifically deals with the practice of the New Democratic Party during this session with respect to petitions. Petitions are being certified by the Clerk of Petitions and then formally presented in the House of Commons some weeks or months later as part of a deliberate practice on the part of the New Democratic Party.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday, March 17, 1987, I requested the data of certification of a petition being submitted by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He replied that the petition in question had been certified on October 1, 1986. That would be some five months earlier. On March 19, I asked the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) as to the date of the certification of a petition presented on March 19. It was certified on January 6 of this year. Both of these petitions, I might add, were with respect to the Patent Act changes.
March 23, 1987

If the Chair were to review Petition No. 332-1271, the Chair would find it was approved on June 12, 1986, and presented on March 9, 1987. If the Chair were to review Petition No. 3321276, presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) with respect to the Patent Act, the Chair would find it was approved on November 7, 1986, and presented on March 10, 1987.
This practice is continuing. In fact, on Friday, March 20, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) presented three petitions. The petitioners were supposed to be very concerned about the Patent Act changes. Those three petitions were certified by the Clerk of Petitions on November 26, 1986, four months earlier, and then presented last Friday. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the New Democratic Party are bringing the House into disrepute by this abuse of one of the fundamental principles of our democratic system for blatant political purposes.
Citation 666 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, states:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is
acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution and has been
exercised without interruption since 1867.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that by certifying petitions and holding them for formal presentation in the House on a daily basis, the New Democratic Party seeks to create the impression that there is a continuing ground swell of public opinion with respect to a certain issue which is continuing for a long period of time. I submit this is an abuse of a longstanding parliamentary tradition. This abuse denies Canadians who have petitioned the Crown and Parliament for redress of their grievances speedy access to that redress. It brings Parliament into disrepute. It unfairly creates the impression of a long-standing issue and denies the Government of the day the right to reply promptly either to the petition or to the individuals who signed the petition.
You will know from the former occupation you and I both share, Mr. Speaker, that there is an expression that justice delayed is justice denied. Canadians who petition the Crown and Government have every right to expect that the Crown will receive their petitions quickly if they entrust them to a Member of Parliament and that the Crown will take the petitions into account. If a Member of Parliament has a petition certified and then delays the presentation of that petition for political purposes, that hearing and redress are unfairly delayed.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Members of Parliament have a responsibility to present petitions as soon as possible after certification. If they cannot do it in person, there is a practice in the rules of procedure whereby the petition can be filed with the Table and have the same force and effect. I suggest that this practice brings Parliament into disrepute. The distortion of the petition process brings this entire Chamber and its Members into disrepute.
I have no difficulty whatsoever with the formal presentation of petitions. That is part of our tradition and should continue. However, Canadians who signed these petitions trust their
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
Members of Parliament to present them promptly. If they are delayed for political purposes, then I suggest that Canadians are going to view the petition process with great skepticism. I suggest that petitions are a legitimate gauge of public opinion if they are fairly worded and presented promptly. While the delay in the presentation of a petition does not diminish how the signatories feel about the issue, if they are delayed in order to create the impression of a long-standing grievance, then that distorts the situation.
Your Honour will also know that under Standing Order 106(8) the Government is required to reply to a petition within 45 days. Today I tabled some 83 replies of the Government. We have respected that deadline. We have also gone further and in some cases written to individual petitioners.
I have here for examination, if Your Honour cares to review it, a letter which is being sent to all petitioners in the case of the Patent Act by the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), in which he states very fully the Government's case in respect of changes to the Patent Act.
While I would not suggest that the petitions are being tampered with, I would suggest that there are examples of letters in reply which read as follows: "I never corresponded with anybody on this subject and I have no interest in the matter"; "I suspect that somebody has wrongly used my name for political purposes"; "The reason for my mystification is that I have never corresponded with the Prime Minister on this or any other subject"; and "I have never written to you concerning the hassle over generic drugs, nor have I signed any petition". I do not want to pursue that aspect of this point of order any further. I just raise the question.
The second abuse of the petition process is that Members of Parliament from the New Democratic Party are misleading Parliament when they present petitions certified by other members in a deliberate attempt to create the impression that an issue has widespread concern.
On Friday, March 20, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) distributed petitions to his colleagues in the NDP for presentation in the House. The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), and the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) participated in this charade. All those petitions-and I have them here-were certified by the Hon. Member for Spadina on Thursday, March 19. On Friday, the Hon. Member came into the House and distributed them to his colleagues for presentation. All the addresses on those petitions were from Metropolitan Toronto and area.
By having these petitions presented by Members from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, the Hon. Member for Spadina sought to have Parliament believe that Canadians in different parts of the country were petitioning Parliament for

March 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
redress. If that is not deliberately misleading the House, it comes as close to deliberately misleading the House as anything in my experience.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 heard very carefully the words of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, which were "if that is not deliberately misleading the House", it comes very close to it. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is also as close to getting out of order as he can be. I will take account of the very careful wording he used, but I would ask that he be extremely careful as he continues his remarks.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take your admonition.
As I said earlier, we have no difficulty with the legitimate presentation of petitions. However, I would point out that in the month of February an hour and a half of the time of the House was spent on the presentation of petitions. Since the opening of this Parliament on October 1, almost seven hours of House time have been given to this procedure. The Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party can hardly complain about the lack of time for debate when we find that it is being wasted in this manner.
I suggest that the delaying of the presentation of petitions in order to pretend that a long-standing issue exists is a cheap political trick. It is a complete fabrication and a charade. It is an attempt to mislead the House and the Canadian public.
1 further suggest that the practice of distributing petitions to other MPs by the member who certified them, in order to pretend that there is an issue of widespread concern, is also a cheap political trick, a complete fabrication and charade, and an attempt to mislead the House and the Canadian public.
The holier than thou New Democratic Party will stop at nothing for partisan political purposes. The rights of petitioners mean nothing to them. The rights of Parliament mean nothing to them. The reputation of their fellow Members of Parliament who present petitions are completely disregarded. I call upon the Chair to examine this practice and to stop what I consider to be a complete abuse of the House.
I suggest the Chair rule that in the future petitions must be presented in a timely fashion by the Member of Parliament who certified them. In the alternative, I suggest that Your Honour might want the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to review the matter to safeguard the rights of petitioners to timely presentation of their petitions to the Crown and Parliament, rather than subject them to cheap partisan political tactics by members of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in summing up, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader said that since October 1 members of all three Parties have used a total of seven hours to present petitions. He has made it sound like they have taken a large amount of time. If the Government were so concerned about the amount of time it needs for government business, it could have called the House
back in September. Seven hours over as many months is not a large proportion of time. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has a legitimate point in that area.
Opposition Members have complaints with regard to the Government, and I should like to refer to one example. Sometimes we wait a very long time to get answers from the Parliamentary Secretary to questions we have placed on the Order Paper. Yet, we have avoided the tactic of getting up every day and asking when a question will be answered. We have not wasted House time on that. It is a legitimate right of opposition Members to rise and ask when the Parliamentary Secretary will finally answer a particular question.
With regard to the substance of the matter raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, and in that he mentioned that I have risen on a number of occasions, in my particular case one of my petitions was certified in January and it took me approximately two months to present it. He should also realize that I have had from a very small population riding over a thousand people who have written on this particular item. They do not come on one piece of paper. They come in on pieces of paper with two or three names or five or ten names.
This means that it was not a petition which I circulated on November 1 and brought into the House on November 6. In truth, people are still writing in to me, signing petitions, and expressing their grievances with regard to the Government. If we used the Gallup polls, I would suspect that there is an increasing dissatisfaction with the Government over the passage of time. People who used to vote Conservative and are concerned about issues are people who are now supporting us and writing to us.
I understand the Government's concern that we do not present petitions right away. It is a legitimate concern of the Government. However, I think our petitioners would want us to make as effective a use of the presentation of petitions as possible. The people who sign petitions would understand if- and today I could have done so on behalf of Churchill, Pikwitonei, Flin Flon, and The Pas, Manitoba-I rose a week or two later, or perhaps even later, to present petitions on behalf of people in some of those same communities and in other communities expressing their particular grievance with the Government.
In the case of the patent drug legislation, over 1,200 people from my riding alone have signed petitions. They did so on November 6, December 15 and in January. Obviously some people are still signing petitions today and I will continue to present them in the House. This issue is still before the House. Legislation will soon be studied at report stage and then we will have third reading. It is an active issue and an issue on which we have a right to present petitions.
[DOT] (U30)
The other matter raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) has to do with the habit, practised by some members, of circulating petitions.
March 23, 1987

If a petition is received by one member, he or she takes on the responsibility of having it certified but may ask another Member to present it in the House. I have taken part in that process, Mr. Speaker, and I consider that honourable. I have taken petitions that do not come from my riding but come from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, places where we do not have New Democratic Members of Parliament at present-


Philip Derek Lewis: Spadina?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I have had them certified. I believe people send petitions to the New Democratic Party wanting their petitions raised in the House of Commons. It matters not to them whether it is the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), Brant (Mr. Blackburn), Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) or Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) that presents the petition. The petitions were not sent to me as an individual but to our caucus and people expect a member of our caucus to present them.
I have looked at Beauchesne and our Standing Orders since the Parliamentary Secretary indicated his concern on this issue, and I thank him for giving notice of it. I see nothing in the rules to say that the same Member who received a petition, often from people in other ridings, must have it certified and that he or she must present it in the House. It may seem cleaner or more efficient, but if I receive a petition, as I used the example before, from people in New Brunswick and I have received it because it came into my office as caucus whip, I do not feel it is my obligation to present that petition in the House. I will, however, get it certified so that it is ready to be presented and I will make sure it is given to the Clerk of Petitions. It may be appropriate when the time comes for some other Member to present the petition, perhaps someone who has been in the locale in the last little while or perhaps someone whose critic area is more directly concerned with the topic being presented.
It seems to me the Government is concerned that we are making this a political issue, that by holding off petitions and not presenting them all on the date they are certified, by presenting them over a number of days or in the case of having a number of petitions presented on the same day by a number of people, that this is political. God help us, Mr. Speaker, if we are ever political in the House of Commons. How dreadful it would be if we tried to make a Government Bill into a political issue that would not be within the rules of the House of Commons. God help us, Mr. Speaker, if we have the situation with the Government not liking a petition and harassing us day after day in one fashion or another. We had the spectre last fall of the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) wanting to see our petitions before we presented them. He found that they were in the proper form and we were allowed to continue presenting them.
In the last couple of weeks the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader saw the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pass a petition to the Hon. Member for
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). The Parliamentary Secretary rose and said that that was not fair, that the petition obviously belonged to the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap. Unfortunately for the Parliamentary Secretary someone had asked the Member from Kamloops-Shuswap to give the petition to the Member for Comox-Powell River because the petitioners were from the riding of Comox- Powell River. This again was part of a pattern of harassment by the Government. To be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, he did apologize on that occasion.
I do not think the point of order that has been raised today is legitimate. It may be something that concerns the Government in its political role. But if we have had only seven hours taken up by petitions since October, some of which have been presented by Government Members and some by Liberal Members, I would say that some Government Members are not doing their jobs. Lots of people would like members to present petitions. Obviously we are not spending very much time in the House with legitimate complaints, beefs and concerns of people who live in Government ridings.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this is a serious issue. The Government is in a situation to know when petitions are certified. The Government is in the position, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, of responding on an individual basis to petitions. The Government may not like our political agenda, but we do not like the Government's either.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on listening to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) and to the reply by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, I was at first tempted to allow this matter to pass by as just another indication of the ongoing battle between the Conservatives and New Democrats for third place. However, after reflecting somewhat on the arguments presented, I think there is a point here about which comment has to be made.
It is a matter of concern that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council finds it necessary on a day when there is an Opposition motion before the House to raise this point of order and to ask the Speaker to take it seriously. The Parliamentary Secretary said that you should rule that petitions can only be presented to this House immediately by those who have received them and who have had them certified. I invite you to look at the rules of order of this House, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 106(3) which reads:
A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the
sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
I draw your attention to some of the words "may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the House". Also, if you look at Standing Order 106(4), it reads:
Any Member desiring to present a petition, in his or her place in the House,
may do so on "Presenting Petitions" during the ordinary daily routine of
business.
Nowhere in the very precise language used by the Standing Order does it say that a petition has to be presented to this

March 23, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
House as soon as it is received by a Member. Nowhere does it say that the member who presents the petition has to be the one who receives it in the first instance. I think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that you do not have the authority to make a ruling which clashes with the clear words of the Standing Orders of this House.
Some months ago when members attempted to present to the House all the petitions they had received on a subject on the same day, Government spokesmen got to their feet and raised a point of order saying that this was of questionable validity because it unduly ate up the time of the House that otherwise would be available for Government business and other proceedings. Today, however, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is saying that there is something wrong if instead of trying to present all your petitions on the same day you do a few at a time so as to take up less time on any particular day.
Just what is the Government after? I hate to suggest this, but I wonder if the Government is not trying to choke off an elementary right of Canadians and an elementary right of opposition Parties on their behalf to petition Government through Parliament. Why else would the Deputy House Leader raise this rather strange point of order which flies in the face of the clear language of the Standing Orders and also flies in the face of the position taken by the Government months ago when members attempted to present petitions to the House as soon as they were received, no matter how much time it took on any particular day? The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. I say that Hon. Members do not have to do this, but if the Deputy House Leader wants members to present petitions as soon as they receive them, the Government cannot complain about the time being taken up on any particular day when time is being used for that purpose.
The Deputy House Leader for the Government is saying that somehow or other, people who present petitions to the House through Members of Parliament are aggrieved if those petitions are not presented very soon after they are signed and sent here. Quite apart from the fact that the Standing Orders do not require that this approach be taken, if there is any complaint about when a petition is presented, it is a complaint of the person or persons signing the petition, not of the Government to whom that petition is addressed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader certainly has no mandate to raise this point allegedly on behalf of those presenting petitions. As I have said, the complaint, if there is any complaint, is solely that of those who have signed the petition.
It might be argued that the rules also indicate that members can simply table petitions and file them with the Clerk, but that is an option to be used at the discretion of the member who wishes to present the petition. It is not something that can be imposed upon any member by the Government. To suggest that, is a total distortion of what the rules say and a total distortion of the right of petitioning Parliament. It is certainly
a total distortion of the role of Government and Opposition in a democratic Parliament.
I have said before that since members of the present Government came into office they have through various means attempted to operate as if this were some type of one-Party state. That was not the case after the election and it is not the case now. Certainly this is confirmed every day by public opinion polls. It is not proper for the Government to try to tell members that, rather than using their own judgment or the judgment of those signing petitions about presenting petitions in open sessions of the House, they must instead file them with the Clerk. That is the choice primarily of the Member of Parliament who wishes to present the petition.
The Parliamentary Secretary has complained that since last fall seven hours have allegedly been used for presenting petitions. As has been pointed out, this is not a lot of time compared to the total number of sitting hours since then. But what concerns me is that he implied that using this time to present petitions is somehow wasting the time of the House. Yet, at the beginning of his remarks, he was ready to admit that one of the most fundamental rights of people in Canada is the right to petition the Government through Parliament about their concerns. It cannot be both a waste of time and a fundamental right to be exercised according to our rules.
I conclude by saying that not only do the rules clearly permit what the Hon. Member is complaining of, but also that if you accept as well founded the point of order of the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, the result will be to choke off the rights of Canadians to petition the Government and the rights of opposition Members to speak on behalf of people who wish to petition the Government.
Why is the member who is speaking on behalf of the Government so sensitive about this issue at this time? One can only conclude that government Members fear the voices of the Canadian people. They want to choke off the voices of ordinary Canadians. We in the Official Opposition do not intend to let them do that. We want to make sure that those voices can be heard through petitions and through Members of Parliament until the time comes when the voices of Canadians are heard during an election and this thoroughly bad Government is thrown out of office.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments because the matter is of some interest to me. As Hon. Members are aware, I am one of those members who present a considerable number of petitions in this House, petitions that are often taken up by people in my riding. I will not name the various subjects they deal with, but I think a look at the record will show that I have presented petitions on many occasions.
Mr. Speaker, to find a statement on the right of petitioning, we must refer to Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Beau-chesne's 5th edition.
March 23, 1987

The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution and has been exercised without interruption since 1867.
I am referring to Citation 666, on page 209, In fact, while my colleagues were speaking, I read a little further and something caught my eye. There are a number of details concerning who may present a petition and how one is to proceed. After discussing remonstrances, signatures and the substance of the petition, Beauchesne raises a question that deals precisely with the point raised by the Hon. Member, namely that if we have a petition prepared in the riding and we present it in the House, is there any provision in the Standing Orders that obliges us to do so with celerity, in other words, as soon as possible, and is it mandatory that petitions taken up in our ridings for any number of reasons be presented by the member for the riding in which they were taken up?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two points which I think are of some interest and I will start with Citation 689 on page 212 in Beauchesne's, appearing under the title:


PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
689.	As the Speaker does not take part in debates, and may be called to give decisions on the regularity of petitions, he does not present petitions to the House. When asked by his constituents to do so, he must avail himself of the services of another Member-
There is a reference to Bourinot, page 231, and May, page 817. And reading further:
690.	A member may petition the House but his petition should be presented by another Member-
In other words, I may be included among the petitioners, but in that case another Member has to present the petition for me.
This deals with the objection raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, namely that the Standing Orders, and I am referring to Standing Order 106(4), do not indicate it must be the same member. I may be another member, and all the NDP Members have to do, if they are accused of "packing in" petitions will be to sign the petitions and say: I am not qualified because I signed the petition so would you present the petition for me.
[Stage Direction]
Except for very clear dispositions adopted on February 24, 1986, to get rid of a lot of grey areas, there is nothing in the Standing Orders to state that a member is limited to presenting only petitions that he has gathered or, for that matter, petitions that he has had certified. I have taken perhaps 35 or 40 petitions to the Clerk of Petitions on one morning. It was physically impossible for her to certify all those petitions that day because there were a great many others to be certified. I was patient and waited for her to call back. When the petitions came in we tabled them as fast as we could. However, it was sometimes impossible for me to table all the petitions on the same day because of some difficulty in getting them certified, and at other times because of their great number.
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
What happens when a member is absent? Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that when a petition is presented as certified this day, it must be presented, in his words, immediately or in a timely fashion? Does that mean they have to be tabled that day? I think that would be difficult for some members who have things to do other than be sitting in this House. They have committee work or they may be outside the House doing other parliamentary work. It would be kind of difficult to demand that members table the petition on the day it was certified.
The Government must now present a reply to the petition within 45 days, and that is good. However, the Government's argument concerning time is superfluous and possibly not very timely because the Government wastes more time than anyone else in telling us very little about its legislation. As a matter of fact, many Canadians anticipate government legislation and present their petitions to us before the legislation is brought in. This happens even to government Members. On the list of petitions answered today by the Government there is one from a government Member. He could have received that petition from his constituents or from others within his sphere of interest. It does happen that groups of people, not necessarily from one riding, petition Parliament, as is their right. For example, God knows, we have presented several petitions here from senior citizens and they were not always from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. They may have been from Ottawa Centre, Ottawa-Carleton, or anywhere else. The argument that a member must table a petition in a timely fashion is fine as long as we accept that the Member is not obligated to table only petitions from his riding. Mind you, the person tabling the petition must sign it. I do not think it would be proper for a Member of this House to table a petition signed by another member. That is wrong. If you asked me to table a petition in your name, Mr. Speaker, I would sign it but it would be constituents of yours who want to petition the House over a grievance in an attempt to rectify a situation about which they feel strongly.
Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to what was said by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and of course to the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary.

I think there is one essential issue emerging from the exchange, that perhaps there is some concern that when a citizen signs a petition he perhaps ought to know how much time elapses from the time he signed the petition to the time it is presented in the House. That presentation triggers the obligation on the part of the Government to reply within 45 days. That is a matter which the Chair will consider.
I will look with some care at the documentation and procedure and I may be able to make some comment which is

March 23, 1987
Supply
helpful at a later time. Certainly the right to present petitions is an undoubted right of a free people. It is our constitutional tradition. I did not take anything said today, intentionally anyway, to be a suggestion that that right ought to be infringed. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier pointed out that there is an obligation upon the Chair to ask another Hon. Member to present petitions presented to me. I should advise Hon. Members that I do receive petitions regularly and I have to ask the indulgence of other Hon. Members to present them.
I think the essential thing coming out of this debate is that people who sign petitions have a fair certainty that the Government is responding with due diligence as soon as possible after the petition is received. Perhaps the Chair can assist Hon. Members by examining the response the Government makes in its reply to petitions within 45 days of the petition coming to the attention of the House, as it is obligated to do.
For Hon. Members who may not be as fully aware of past practices, and also for the benefit of the public who is watching and listening, it should be pointed out that the obligation on the Government to reply to petitions within 45 days is part of parliamentary reform. While there certainly was an ancient and undoubted right to present petitions, there was no corresponding obligation on the part of the Government to respond to them.
I find that the interventions are of interest. I can assure all Hon. Members that the Chair will be diligent at all times to ensure that any Canadian who presents a petition to this Chamber will have every opportunity to have it responded to by the Government. I will consider some of the paperwork and address the question of whether or not a citizen may be under the apprehension that the Government is not replying rapidly enough to a petition which may have been signed many weeks or months previously. I think that is probably a matter that can properly be discussed.
I thank all Hon. Members, including the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Windsor West, the Hon. Member for Churchill, and of course the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: In fact, from January, 1986, to January, 1987, only 5,000 of the 137,000 jobs created in Canada were created outside of Ontario. I am glad that the economy of southern Ontario is doing well, but there is a real problem of unemployment in northern Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces and western Canada.
In my part of the country the situation is now much worse than it was in the 1970s or in the early 1980s. In February the unemployment rate in British Columbia was 13.4 per cent, in Alberta it was 10.9 per cent, in Saskatchewan it was 7.2 per cent, and in Manitoba it was 6.7 per cent.
Those figures tell only part of the story. Looking at regional unemployment rates in Canada we see that many parts of the west have unemployment rates which are exceptionally high. In the Kamloops, British Columbia, area the unemployment rate is 19.1 per cent; in the Kimberley-Cranbrook area it is 17.4 per cent; in the City of Edmonton and area it is 12.8 per cent; in the City of Vancouver it is 14.2 per cent, in northern Saskatchewan it is over 10 per cent; in the City of Saskatoon it is 10.4 per cent; in the City of Winnipeg it is about 7.8 per cent; and in Dauphin and northern Manitoba it is about 9.3 per cent. Therefore, in many parts of western Canada there are extremely high unemployment rates. That, Madam Speaker, is not good enough.
What has that done to western Canadians? What has that done to hospital boards, municipalities, and school boards? When I go to my riding every couple of weeks I see nothing but concern and despair about the future economy of western Canada. I find that all four western provinces are having serious economic problems. Deficits are being run up. Provincial governments are being forced to increase the taxes of the citizens of the provinces. In my Province of Saskatchewan the matching grants of two municipalities have been frozen for two years. There will be increases in the mill rates in municipal taxes. The costs of school boards and hospitals will be passed on to local municipalities.
A new Budget was recently brought down in British Columbia with major tax increases for British Columbians. There is a tremendous deficit in Alberta for the first time in many years. A new Budget was brought in there with major increases in taxation for Albertans. There are economic problems in terms of a deficit in Manitoba and massive economic problems in terms of a deficit in Saskatchewan.
I would like to spend a minute speaking about my own province because that is the one I know best. I would like to draw to the attention of the House something which I think is scandalous in a province of only one million people, that is, that we have a deficit in our province this year of $1.2 billion. A province with one million people has a deficit of $1.2 billion. I have a chart which shows that in 1983 the deficit was $227 million, in 1984 it was $331 million, in 1985 it was $395 million, in 1986 it was $584 million, and in 1987 the deficit in Saskatchewan is $1.2 billion. All throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s Saskatchewan had a surplus and a balanced Budget, almost all the time. Under the governments of Tommy
Supply
Douglas, Woodroffe Lloyd, Ross Thatcher and Allan Blakeney we did not have deficits in Saskatchewan. Although it is not entirely the fault of Grant Devine, we now have a deficit for which future generations will have to pay. It is massive, indeed.
I would like to refer to one or two sentences from an article in the business section of the Leader Post which talks about the massive deficit back home. It states that this deficit is three times larger than predicted by the Minister of Finance in his last Budget. That shows the severity of the problem facing western Canadians. The article goes on to state that it marks the fifth time in as many years the Progressive Conservative Government has missed its deficit target. This time the deficit has taken a quantum leap into the stratosphere. That is from the business pages of the Regina Leader Post of Friday, March 6.
We have very serious economic problems right across western Canada. I will speak about the farm economy and the energy economy later. I think we are all quite aware of what are some of those problems. My colleague, the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) will be speaking about forestry this afternoon.
What is the Government's record with regard to western Canada? In the last Budget we saw the continuation of a cut of $3 billion a year from regional economic development spending in Canada. I noticed a Canadian Press article in the Toronto Sun this morning which said that the industry Minister has given strong indications that major changes including cut-backs are coming in the way the federal Government dispenses regional assistance. I would like the Minister to tell us in the House today what his plans are for regional development. This sends fear through the hearts of western Canadians who are already suffering from previous cut-backs and problems in the world economy which affect resources, agriculture, and other economic problems of western Canada.
Another problem is the insensitive way in which the Government is treating some western issues. I need only remind the House of the controversy in Manitoba over the CF-18 contract which was not awarded to the City of Winnipeg.
With regard to agriculture, the Government speaks of the $1 billion for grain farmers. I want to remind the House that even with the $1 billion our farmers get a lot less than the American and European farmers because of support prices in those countries. The farmers need more assistance as well if they are going to survive in western Canada.
The history of western Canada shows that there have been many grievances about the way the country has developed. One of those grievances concerns western Canada as a source of raw materials which are shipped to central Canada and other parts of the world with very little processing and development. The transportation system has discriminated against development in western Canada. These grievances and

March 23, 1987
Supply
others have existed for many years, but people thought they might be very positively addressed after September, 1984.
In the past, federal Governments have been insensitive to the problems of western Canada. The Liberal Party was almost decimated in western Canada for some 20 years because of its insensitivity to the problems of the West. We have seen the development of the CCF and the NDP, the Social Credit Party and other parties in the west because of the failure of federal governments to address western Canadian problems. That failure continues today.
One of my concerns is that once again in western Canada there are some signals that certain people are turning, in frustration, to western separatist groups like Western Canada Concept and the Confederation of Regions Party. One need only look at the riding of Lisgar in southern Manitoba and areas like that to see what I mean. I do not want to exaggerate that sentiment, but only want to point out that if we do not address some legitimate concerns soon more and more western Canadians will be extremely frustrated with the system.
I want to suggest a number of steps that we should be taking. The most important long-term step is to create a western economic development strategy that will have as its objective the diversification of the economy of western Canada. There have been many half-hearted attempts in the past to address that particular issue. I remember well the minority Parliament between 1972 and 1974 when Prime Minister Trudeau held a conference in Calgary called "WEOC", the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. There was great optimism again that a federal government, because of a minority Parliament, would perhaps listen to western Canada and do something substantive. In July, 1984, Mr. Trudeau was elected with a majority government and suddenly the priorities of western Canada were once again put on the back burner.
A few years later the Western Development Fund was announced. Once again there was a great deal of fanfare about this fund, but it never got off the ground and did nothing to help diversify the economy of western Canada. Although the Deputy Prime Minister has not announced this publicly, he has established with his colleagues a group in the City of Winnipeg to look at diversifying the economy of western Canada. This group was called the Western Initiatives Office in Winnipeg.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why don't you check your sources?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a group of people who are supposed to be looking at problems in western Canada. Perhaps he could tell us more about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you stick to the facts?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have spoken to the people involved in the group, so I know of what I speak.
There should be a western economic development strategy. I know the Minister agrees with me in principle. Such a strategy should be based on three points. First, it should be based on
diversifying western Canada and building on the resource base and the agricultural base that already exist. I believe we can all agree that we have tremendous resources throughout the west, including great oil and gas resources in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Saskatchewan has immense potash reserves which represent about 30 per cent of the potash reserves in the world. There are tremendous forest resources throughout the Province of British Columbia and elsewhere in western Canada, and there are other resources in Manitoba and throughout the west. We need an economic strategy that will build on that particular foundation throughout western Canada and diversify the economy so there are jobs for western Canadians.
Second, we must build on agriculture in the west because of its great importance to our economy and the supply of food to the entire world.
Third, we need a change in transportation policy so that transportation will assist the western Canadian population rather than hinder it as it has done for so many years.
In addition to a western economic development strategy, I believe we must quickly take action to do more for agriculture if we want to save the family farm across the west. Let me put a couple of statistics on the record. We have heard about the real possibility of a drop in the initial price of wheat by some 20 per cent, after a drop in the price of wheat last year of about 19 per cent. If that happens, the price of wheat in this country for top quality grain will be some $2.83 a bushel. When one takes transportation to the Lakehead or the West Coast into account, top quality grains will produce some $2.37 a bushel. Let us compare that with the American farmer who receives $6.10 Canadian a bushel and the European farmer who receives $7 Canadian a bushel. How long can a farmer stay on the land at $2.37 a bushel in this country when the American farmer receives $6.10 and the European farmer receives $7? That is not good enough.
I have a study by the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture which gives a breakdown of the cost of producing grain on a per acre basis. Again, the Department is talking about the impossibility of being able to even meet production costs in western Canada. The Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture says the farmer would have to produce an average of 58 bushels per acre of the top quality grain just to break even in the production of that grain, let alone meet the living costs of farmers and their families across western Canada today. When it comes to barley, it will be necessary to produce 135 bushels per acre if there is a drop of some 20 per cent in the price of barley, which everyone is predicting. Such production figures for the Prairies are absolutely unrealistic and impossible to meet. There are extremely serious problems in the grain economy, I suggest more serious than anything we saw in the 1930s. Farmers are receiving prices as low as $2.37 a bushel for the top quality grain and the price drops considerably for grades two, three, four and lower.
There are a number of ways to address the situation. First, we know that a major part of the problem is external because
March 23, 1987

we export most of our grain. The Government must continue to fight for an international grains agreement so that there is a pricing formula between the five major exporting and consuming nations of the world that is based on production costs of farmers around the world and the ability of consuming nations to pay.
Second, in the short term, we need another deficiency payment for western Canadian grain farmers. Even to guarantee last year's prices, we probably need a minimum of $2 billion for western Canadian grain farmers. It is incumbent on the House to come to the assistance of the farmers of the Prairies when they have a problem that is beyond their control, namely, the price wars and subsidy wars between the Americans and the European Economic Community. I believe we will have to give greater consideration to the necessity of providing a much greater deficiency payment than was provided last year.
We need a parity pricing system in which a farmer receives his cost of production and a decent profit for his products. We should be producing generic farm chemicals at cost in this country so that farmers can have chemicals at cost. The high price of fertilizer must be reduced in Canada to give farmers additional help.
Let me deal with energy. Our Party believes that there should be a floor price in energy so that there is a minimum price below which it will not be allowed to fall.


An Hon. Member:: Who is going to pay?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Canadian consumer would pay the price. There would be a two-price system like there is with wheat today. The consumer is protected when there are excessively high world oil prices and a floor price so that workers maintain their jobs and petroleum industries are protected when the price falls to an artifically low level. That is our Party's policy, which I think would be a great asset to western Canada.
I ask the House to develop some leadership and a vision for a western economic program that will make western Canada a very strong partner in Confederation. If we have strong partners in Confederation we will have a strong Canada. That will be good, not just for the West, but good for Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic and northern Canada as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. Does he think that a western diversification package should have in it a 2 per cent payroll tax such as is in place in the Province of Manitoba? Does he think that a diversification package should have in it a 2 per cent tax on the capitalization of any company doing business in the Province of Manitoba, a measure his Party just introduced in Manitoba? Does he think it should have succession duties?
Supply
I remind the Hon. Member that the Province of Saskatchewan and East Germany were the only two states in the world that experienced a decline in population between the years 1945 and about 1965, a time at which the Hon. Member's Party was in office in that province.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I can see my hon. friend from Edmonton is very sensitive to the feeling in his city where the Conservative Party is now running third, and rightfully so.
The Hon. Member asked me about succession duties. Saskatchewan was one of the first provinces in Canada to make an exemption for farmers in terms of capital gains when they sold their farms. I know that my friend from Vegreville knows that. That measure was brought in during the days of Allan Blakeney when he was the Premier of our province. The reason for such a measure is that farmers do not have pension plans. When they sell their farms they have to use the capital gains they receive to get them over their retirement years. I certainly support that.
As I said before, our Party also supports the exemption on capital gains for farmers and fishermen which is being proposed today. I do not think that that is a very controversial issue.
In terms of the taxes in Manitoba, it is up to the Premier and the Legislature of Manitoba to decide what they will do about those particular taxes. As I said, the main item for me in terms of western diversification is that we build a resourcing and processing industry in western Canada based on agriculture and based on our natural resources. We also need changes in transportation so that we do not have discrimination against western Canada in terms of freight rates, like we have had up until now.
I warn the House once again. If we do not do something concrete for the farmers in western Canada we will have many more thousands of them leave the land. They expect something to be done. They see things being done for other sectors in the country and they expect more help and more assistance as well.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to enlarge on the suggestion he made that an energy program must be developed, a program which will allow the provinces to increase their takes from the energy in their provinces and also increase the number of people who can work in the energy sector.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in terms of energy I think all one has to do is look at the Government of Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan in the 1970s to see the type of royalties that were imposed on the large multinational companies and to see how the people of Saskatchewan benefited from a resource that is theirs. The potash and the oil that is in the ground should not be for the benefit of only big multinational but for the people of Saskatchewan, the people of Alberta and the people of Canada. I think that is very important.

March 23, 1987
Supply
When our Party was in power in Saskatchewan we collected a great many revenues from gas and oil, from uranium and other natural resources. That is one of the reasons there was not a deficit during the Blakeney years in Saskatchewan. It is only because of the fiscal irresponsibility of Grant Devine in terms of mismanaging resources and not taxing the resource companies in that province high enough that there is a deficit higher than it should be. Of course, some of it is caused by falling world oil prices and falling grain prices. But part of it is because the Government is not taxing some of the multinational companies at a high enough rate.
The other point I want to mention is that it is important to have some public ownership of these industries. In Saskatchewan we have SaskOil, a company that has been maintained by the Progressive Conservative Government. We also have the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan which is publicly owned. When the Minister of Finance was in a previous job in Toronto he helped to obtain some of the funding needed to establish the Potash Corporation in Saskatchewan. I think those matters are very important. They are measures which are being kept in place by the present Conservative Government of Saskatchewan because it realizes that the people of our province are very much attracted to the idea of some public ownership in the resource industry.
What we also need is a change in transportation policy so that we will have a freight rate structure in western Canada that does not discriminate against processing and manufacturing in the Prairies in favour of other parts of Canada.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I certainly have no difficulty in agreeing with the objectives to which the Hon. Member refers. However, I am puzzled by some of the policies adopted by the Hon. Member's colleagues in the Province of Manitoba. When the Hon. Member speaks of diversification, which is a historic objective in western Canada, and the development of some sort of manufacturing component greater than what exists now, would he not agree that the regrettable increase in the payroll tax announced last week in the Province of Manitoba will negate the growth of such diversification and make it more difficult for the manufacturing sector to expand and for jobs to be created, something which the Hon. Member seeks in western Canada?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in terms of the payroll tax in Manitoba, perhaps later on today one of my Manitoba colleagues who will speak will talk about this subject and provide more details with respect to it. I do not have all the details. I also wish to caution the Hon. Member for Brandon- Souris (Mr. Clark) that it is sometimes very misleading to look at certain taxes in isolation. He should look at the over-all tax burden on corporations in Manitoba and on Manitobans to see whether or not there is a fair taxation system in place. I suspect that in Manitoba there is a fair taxation system.
In terms of jobs in western Canada, I notice that Manitoba is number one in terms of having the lowest unemployment rate, by far. So something must be working in Manitoba.
There has been more diversification in the province, which I think is largely because of the leadership of Premier Pawley. We do not see the same type of leadership being exhibited by Premier Getty, Premier Devine or Premier Vander Zalm. In the provinces of those Premiers the unemployment rates are much higher. Manitoba does not have the same type of resource base as the other three western provinces. I think the province has done exceptionally well.
If the Hon. Member would look at the taxation base in general he would find that it is more fair than what is in place in the other three western provinces which are governed by Conservative Governments. If the Hon. Member wants to look at something that was unfair in terms of jobs in the Province of Manitoba, then he should look at the issue of the CF-18 contract. I am interested to know what the Hon. Member thinks about the federal Government's decision on the CF-18 issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is your policy?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: These are important issues in western Canada. Perhaps when the Deputy Prime Minister speaks he will give us some ideas with respect to the solution of the Conservative Party.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has introduced the question of the CF-18 contract. In the account of the New Democratic Party convention which was held in Montreal I missed reading about how it resolved this issue. 1 missed reading about how the Manitoba Government brought this to the attention of the convention in Montreal. I wonder if the Hon. Member could fill me in with respect to what I obviously missed in the newspaper.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the burden of government is that you have to make some tough decisions. One of the reasons the Conservative Party is so unpopular in western Canada, and why there has been a revival of popularity for both opposition Parties, is because of the CF-18 issue. Here is a Government which tendered for a contract and Bristol and Canadair bid on it. Bristol, in Manitoba, came in with a lower bid, as well as a scientifically and technically superior bid. Despite that, the Government gave the contract to Canadair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you opposed to that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, if I could just make my point in the final one minute of questions and comments. If the decision had already been made to give the contract to Canadair, and there are arguments for an aerospace industry in Montreal, then why go through the fuss of holding a tendering process in the first place? That is the important issue. All the Government did in this case was mislead western Canadians, and Canadians in general. If one's mind has been made up ahead of time, then why go through the farce of a tendering process, if no one is planning to listen to the results? That is one of the major reasons the Government is seen by western Canadians as a Government that has betrayed them. 1
March 23, 1987

know that members of the Conservative Party in Manitoba feel exactly the same way that 1 do about this issue.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to have a chance to speak on the supply motion debate today because it really builds on the motion we put before the Elouse last Wednesday. On that day we saw Her Majesty's Government and back-benchers stand up and vote against our motion which called on the Government to make a commitment with regard to the agriculture situation in western Canada. We called upon the Government at that time to ensure that the returns for grain produced this coming year will be at least as good as they were in 1986-87, to maintain the freeze on freight rates in a new crop year, to take action to reduce farm input costs through the reduction in chemical prices, such as generic chemicals, and generally deal with the farm debt crisis. I would like to go into that in some detail today. All 125 government back-benchers voted against our motion and I am sure the constituents in western Canada would be very concerned if they realized that their Members of Parliament had voted against those things.
The motion before us today deals not only with agriculture, which is one of our primary industries, but with the forest industry, the energy sector and economic diversification. I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is in the House today. I hope he will join in the debate. I know he is feeling extremely uncomfortable these days and we only have to read the report in The Globe and Mail on March 21 to find out why. The Premier of Alberta, the Deputy Prime Minister's home province, has indicated he plans a separation of the Alberta Conservative Party from its federal counterpart if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does not come up with help soon for the province's ailing economy. The report in The Globe and Mail states:
In the strongest language he has used yet in a continuing fight with Ottawa over the oil-industry aid, Mr. Getty said: "Our provincial party might have to separate in some way from an over-all federal party." In an interview, Mr. Getty emphasized his impatience with the federal Government's refusal to help. "I'm stressing to them time is running out. We're (being hurt) too badly and they don't seem to appreciate it. They must respond in some way. It has to be this year I'd say before summer."
If the Deputy Prime Minister, who lives very close to Edmonton, were to read The Globe and Mail report this morning, March 23, he would see that in several ridings of Edmonton the Tories are running in third place. This is after literally decades of a first-place position. Obviously the Government is not responding to the demands as proposed in the motion before the House today dealing with agriculture, energy, rural diversification in Alberta and the other western provinces, as well as the forestry sector.
Nothing typifies the quandary and concern of Premier Getty of Alberta more than the Syncrude project. Back in the late or mid-1970s, the Syncrude project was foundering even though it was sponsored by several large oil companies. The Liberal
Supply
federal Government at the time came in with a pretty extensive investment of, I believe, some $200 million to get that project going. Last November we received a presentation from the Syncrude people which called upon the federal Government to provide a guarantee agreement of assistance from the federal Government, I believe in the order of $175 million. It was not actual cash. It was not even a loan guarantee. It was simply a guarantee agreement that if the world price of oil fell below $15 a barrel, and it is currently running at $18 or $19 a barrel, the federal Government would provide a loan guarantee at that time. It was unbelievable that the federal Government, which is concerned with energy issues, would not have provided that guarantee agreement. I thought it was really chintzy.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who is a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), announced it was his responsibility that the Government had not provided that guarantee agreement. It was simply unbelievable that the Parliamentary Secretary should take the rap for a Government which has the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) all from Alberta. It is unbelievable that he should be the goat and say he had not really impressed upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the importance of this project. How could those other three members of the federal Cabinet from Alberta sit there and let that project be turned down? The Premier was furious-and he had every right to be so-that the Government would not even provide that guarantee agreement. Of course, the Alberta Government in the end provided the guarantee itself.
That was a signal to people in Alberta, and when our western caucus visited Alberta, during the mid-term break in February, we were told the story that the federal Government had no interest. It was not a case of the cash so much, or that the project would not go ahead, because the Alberta Government went ahead and provided the guarantee, it was the signal that the federal Government was not really committed to the diversification that tar sands programs provide. We are not only talking about the $350 million to expand the capacity by about 20,000 barrels a day, from, I believe it is 125,000 barrels or 130,000 barrels a day to 150,000 barrels a day. The Alberta Government had already put in another $85 million for a doubling of the capacity of Syncrude. That project, provided that world prices do come back, will get underway about 1989 or 1990.
Here we have the federal Government refusing to provide for the interim expansion of the Syncrude projects by some 20,000 barrels a day, which is very important in itself, but also it was going to nix the doubling of capacity, and the provincial Government has had to provide some $85 million to carry out that study. We are talking about a massive expansion which is going to be hobbled because of the federal Government's lack

March 23, 1987
Supply
of commitment to the long-term strategy. I think the upgrading of tar sands plants and heavy oil plants should go ahead. That is very important in the Deputy Prime Minister's riding in terms of jobs. But instead of the cabinet Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who comes from Calgary and has a great stake and interest in the whole energy field, taking the blame for the Government's decision to say no to the oil patch and no to Alberta, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Athabasca, says it is all his fault, that he did not impress upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources its full importance.
In Edmonton today the Tories are running third in the latest opinion polls because they are not prepared to make such a commitment. When our western caucus held hearings in Edmonton, Alberta in mid-February, a second aspect of the Tory energy policy was tremendously rapped by groups such as the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. I am referring to their decision not to provide assistance under an earned depletion allowance. The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada pointed out before our task force hearings in Edmonton that the Government should have provided in the Budget-and there was nothing to speak of in the Budget; it was really an economic statement-for an earned depletion allowance. In that event we could have seen, for a net cost of some $60 million, a gross allowance of $350 million. It would have been a tax expenditure, but much of it would have been recovered in income taxes and in a reduction in unemployment insurance benefits and welfare costs. We could also have seen an extra 2,000 oil wells being drilled in Alberta and in the western sedimentary basin this summer, as well as the creation of 20,000 jobs. Can we imagine the creation of 20,000 jobs for a net cost of $60 million to the federal Government? It is simply incredible that a Government concerned and interested about unemployment would have turned down such a proposal, not only put to it by IPAC but by CPA and the association representing small drillers.
This week a group representing small drillers was in my office and said that the situation would be absolutely devastating if it continued. As IPAC said in its presentation, it is expected that investment this year will be some $3 billion. Let us compare that with $5.3 billion last year and with $9.5 billion in 1985. The number of oil wells drilled this year in Alberta and in the western sedimentary basin will drop from the 12,564 in 1985 to less than 5,400.
With the simple provision of an earned depletion allowance, the number of wells being drilled would increase to 7,000 this year. Investment would increase to over $4 billion and the cash flow would be $6.6 billion. The loss of reserves would also be held to 48 per cent. Under the present regime, the regime the Government is adopting for the coming year, as indicated in the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), only 34 per cent of those reserves will be replaced.
What did the Government promise in the last election? It promised jobs, jobs, jobs. The then Minister of Energy glibly talked about hundreds of thousands of jobs. It was never possible to pin her down to whether it would be 100,000, 200,000, or 300,000 jobs. However, what have we seen? We have seen thousands of people being put out of work and no commitment in the Budget to provide jobs in the coming year.
A whole new regime has been put before us by the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, compared with what the Government promised in the last election. Selfsufficiency was an important aspect, but the new Minister said that self-sufficiency was not a realistic goal at this time. He also indicated last fall that job creation was not an important factor in the energy policy and that no questions would be asked if small Canadian companies in trouble were bought out by large U.S. multinational oil companies. The situation is extremely serious in the oil industry, and the motion before the House calls for attention to this situation as well as to agriculture.
I want to talk about the situation in agriculture. At present the circumstances are the most devastating and most uncertain we have seen certainly since the 1930s. About two and a half weeks ago we learned that the price of grain would be about 20 per cent less than it was last year. When that was reported at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Hull, Quebec, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) was present and said that he did not know anything about it. It was amazing that the Canadian Wheat Board would have indicated that to members of the advisory committee and to the public, but that the Minister did not know anything about the 20 per cent reduction in initial prices of grains. It was cleared up that afternoon because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) met with farmers from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and indicated clearly that the Canadian Wheat Board was calling for a 20 per cent reduction in initial prices.
Let us put it into perspective. This indicates a reduction from $130 per tonne for No. 1 wheat in the current crop year to $110 or perhaps even $105 per tonne. The real prices for No. 2 and No. 3 feed grains would be much lower.
In my motion last week we called upon the Government to provide at least the same returns as those of last year. Taking into account that perhaps the initial price would be 20 per cent less, we called upon the Government to provide returns, along with stabilization or efficiency payments, of at least $ 130 per tonne. What the Minister had to say last week in that debate was very interesting. He quoted his statement of March 5 when he met with grain producers and refused to give a commitment. He quoted as if farmers were saying that they did not want to know what support would be provided. He spent all his time talking about resource neutral payments and so on, but he gave no commitment on what financial assistance would be provided.
Last Friday I had a chance to meet with a number of wheat producers in Manitoba. I told them that the Minister said in
March 23, 1987

the debate last week that the Government would spare no effort. I asked them what would happen if they went to their banks and said that the Minister had given them a commitment that he would spare no effort in providing assistance. One farmer said that if he went to his banker and said that the Minister would spare no effort and gave him 65 cents, his banker would give him a cup of coffee but not a production loan based upon the Minister's comment.
The Minister went into great contortions about how farmers want to base their plantings on market signals and such. In a press release on March 13, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said that things did not look very promising this year for price, that he thought we would see most farmers planting, and that it would have to be an individual decision by each farmer. It is blatantly obvious that it must be an individual decision, but we do not know what is the initial price or what will be the financial support.
In the same press report Jack Penner, President of the Keystone Agricultural Producers said, "There is an awful lot of discussion out there whether or not farmers should even seed a crop. We are facing a situation worse than the 1930s if we do not address this. Why should producers go out and seed if they are going to only lose money? Wise has told farmers the decision on the federal aid is not likely before seeding".
We can see that the Government is giving no commitment to the farm sector; no commitment to the energy sector. Obviously it is making no commitment at all to western agriculture or to the western energy sector. It is about time for the Government to come clean and make a clear-cut commitment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there any questions or comments? If not, we shall resume debate. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate this very important motion and I appreciate the tenor with which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) introduced it. I welcome the opportunity for a number of reasons. First, it gives us an opportunity to outline what has been done, what is in the process of being done, what must be done and what will be done in the future. For starters, recognizing that the debate has centred around agriculture to a great extent, I thought the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville might be interested in the following quotation from a representative of the Alberta Wheat Pool which appeared in The Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday, December 18, 1986. Under the heading "Pool Praises PM" we find:
The Alberta Wheat Pool has praised the Government of Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney for its handling of problems in the agriculture industry.
Spokesman Bruno Friesen said yesterday agriculture is facing some of its
toughest times ever and Ottawa has been quick to respond.
"It's really quite an extraordinary hard time in agriculture right now and we
feel that so far the present Government has responded well".
Supply
What better vote of confidence could one have than that, Madam Speaker, having regard to the fact that the pools have traditionally not been noted for exposing any political allegiance to either Party? That is rather significant and we welcome it, as I am sure the Hon. Member does too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What date was that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: December 18, 1986, page 59.
We recognize, as do all Hon. Members, the very difficult circumstances the west is undergoing with the collapse in commodity prices in agriculture, forestry, mining and energy. Unfortunately, we have heard very little from either the Liberal spokesman or the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville concerning solutions. The Member for Yorkton- Melville outlined in a general way what he considered to be a reasonable approach toward economic diversification, the principles upon which I agree.
In brief, we have to remember that we are faced with worldwide oversupply, fierce international competition, export subsidy wars and protectionist measures around the globe, all of which combined have imposed serious pressure on the resource- based industry of western Canada. Commodity prices have fallen. Western Canada has not enjoyed the same robust economic activity experienced in other parts of Canada, particularly in Ontario. Many of these problems first emerged during the previous recession when, combined with the 198182 interest rate spiral, Canadian farmers found themselves in very serious difficulty. That also had a major bearing upon the resource-based industry in western Canada which was in the process of expanding and building. It too got lodged into some very high interest rates.
I am somewhat surprised, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Hon. Member from Yorkton-Melville, that his leader, given the importance of this issue, would not have introduced the motion. Is he so preoccupied with gaining political support in Quebec that he finds it a little awkward to support the initiatives and concerns of western Canada?
I noted that the Hon. Member touched on the CF-18 issue. In The Winnipeg Free Press for March 20, 1987, a journalist by the name of Fred Cleverley made the point that the CF-18 issue did not cause much of a discussion at the annual meeting of the New Democratic Party in Montreal. He asked:
Why would Howard Pawley say one thing in Manitoba and another in Montreal? Has he been persuaded that the theft of the CF-18 maintenance contract is less an outrage to Manitoba than he first stated? Would an NDP federal Government act differently from the Liberals and the Conservatives in matters affecting Quebec?
On the contract, the premier's message differs, depending on where he is. New Democrats can count. The figures are Quebec 75, Manitoba 14.
The upshot, Madam Speaker, is that a couple of resolutions were introduced condemning the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair, but neither saw the light of day. While New Democrats are critical of the CF-18 contract, they do not clearly state a position. Certainly that is part of the challenge of being a national Party. What we are seeing now, I suppose,

March 23, 1987
is a certain maturing of the New Democratic Party. It is now looking for support in the Province of Quebec.
The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) on a number of occasions has tried to raise the profile of agriculture and its difficulties. He has been proposing in Question Period that we should have guaranteed grain prices equal to this year's prices. We are not satisfied with the prices being paid to Canadian farmers today. Certainly we must do better. We have cushioned the difficult problem farmers face through deficiency payments, the reduction of input costs and by the removal of fuel taxes. Interest rates have come down.
As well, we have been tackling this issue on the international front. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have been working very closely with farmers both here in Canada and in the international community. Progress is being made, Madam Speaker. But when the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party suggests that the federal Government should force the Canadian Wheat Board to establish artificially high prices, on reflection, I think Hon. Members across the way should consider what they are proposing. They are really proposing a policy of obstruction and interference in the affairs of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board Act is pretty specific. It says this in terms of establishing initial prices:
The Board shall-
Not may.
-with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, determine and fix the
amounts to which producers are entitled per tonne according to grade and the
certificates issued pursuant to this Part-
It does not say that the Governor-in-Council shall with the approval of the Board. It says "The Board shall with the approval of the Governor-in-Council". That is a very important difference. I am surprised that the New Democratic Party would engage in this vicious attack upon the principles and the orderly marketing concept of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Althouse:: We are not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The New Democrats say they are not but by implication they are. They should stop it right now.
May I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to advise the Deputy Prime Minister that when we resume debate he will have 12 minutes remaining.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government approved a first class letter 2-cent postage increase.
I quote the Canada Post press release:
Most additional revenues will come from higher rates on market competing
commercial services. Only 30 per cent of Canada Post revenues originate from
basic rate letters, the remaining 70 per cent being accounted for by its
commercial sector clients.
Mr. Speaker, these 150,000 small and medium-sized businesses operate in Canada and are Canada Post service main users. This is a vital and essential postal service, and such businesses are again hard hit by the Canadian Government.
Ever since the Progressive Conservatives came into office, Mr. Speaker, they have never advocated a small business policy nor any program to boost the expansion of this very important sector which creates most new jobs in this country. Once again faced with higher postal rates, small business will end up paying for this $122 million increase.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, no one disputes that a global over-production brought about by government subsidy programs has resulted in the low grain prices which are devastating Canadian grain and oil-seed producers. Even though the Canadian Government has shown a commitment to see farmers through this crisis, every effort must be made to provide a long-term solution to global over-production of grain.
One answer is becoming more and more obvious. We could put surplus grain directly into our gasoline tanks in the form of ethanol alcohol blended with gasoline. As well as consuming excess grain, it would improve the environment because clean burning alcohol can successfully replace lead as an octane enhancer.
U.S.-Vice President George Bush has initiated a thrust of increasing the use of ethanol in U.S. gas blends by 2.5 billion gallons. This would consume an additional one billion bushels of surplus corn over what is already in ethanol production. If Canada followed that lead and in turn helped convince other grain producing nations to do the same, we would provide the solution to the woes of the Canadian grain farmer at the least cost to the taxpayer.
March 23, 1987




Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has been playing with the future of western Canadian sugar beet producers by delaying yet again a decision on a national sugar policy. In 1985, in return for $2.9 million from Manitoba to the province's producers, the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board who has been charged with developing sugar policy said in a telegram that "the federal Government-will not require any further financial participation beyond the 1985 crop". Then, without consultation, he and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) unilaterally announced a tripartite stabilization plan requiring the provinces to pay one-third of the premiums and to be liable for one-half of the deficit.
Neither the producers nor the provinces have asked for such a plan. What they wanted was a clear national sugar and sweetener policy that would provide long-term viability. What they have is continued delay and lack of direction.



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is going as far back as 1983 to review the tax returns of hundreds of Canadian farmers who, in good faith, utilized the business investment tax credit on purchases of new farm machinery. When making a deal most farmers are interested only in the cash difference between the new item and the trade-in. They do not care how the paperwork is done. It is the cash difference that matters.
In cases where the dealer has exceeded the list or manufacturer's suggested retail price, there may be abuse and few would argue with that. However, the normal trade plus cash deal where the list price is not exceeded ought not to be the topic of a departmental witch-hunt. Yet it appears that Revenue Canada is questioning the valuation of equipment traded in ordinary, every-day, bona fide, arm's-length transactions, and substituting instead its own opinions. I suggest that in doing so Revenue Canada is treading on very thin ice. I urge the Minister to instruct his officials to cease and desist from this arbitrary and dangerous departure from practices in the market-place and from previous policy.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would praise President Reagan for promising this year to do something next year to keep a promise he made last year on acid rain. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to speak frankly and to say that what Canadians want from the United States Government is a program designed to cut acid rain by a certain date, by a certain percentage, and in a manner that is meaningful to Canada.
Washington showed political will when it got Mexico to cut acid rain damaging the U.S. That political will must be generated again with respect to Canada which is downwind from U.S. emissions. The summit is less than two weeks away. We urge the Prime Minister to get off his knees and stand up for Canada.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I urge the Government of Canada to continue aggressively pressing ahead with its efforts to effect a trade agreement with the U.S. Atlantic Canada, one of Canada's disadvantaged regions, stands to gain jobs from a trade agreement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made his determination to improve economic opportunities for Atlantic Canadians well known. In last week's debate the importance of a trade agreement was well expressed by the Prime Minister.
However, the Liberal Leader is against a trade agreement which will bring jobs to Atlantic Canada. He wants the Canadian economy to remain controlled by Bay Street. He says a trade agreement is not important as an instrument for solving the problems of regional underdevelopment. In that respect he cannot even get the support of his Party or caucus. The Hon. Member for Saint Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), the Liberal critic on external affairs, does not agree. Just last week he wrote his fellow Liberal Members of Parliament arguing that the Prime Minister was right, a trade agreement will mean jobs for Atlantic Canadians and western Canadians. That says it all.
Neither does former Liberal cabinet Minister Donald Macdonald agree with the Liberal Leader. Nor does the current President of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Robert, agree with his Leader. These-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member's time has expired.

March 23, 1987



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, last year the Government assured me that giving CF-104 fighter aircraft to Turkey would not affect the delicate political situation in the eastern Mediterranean. However, on March 5 Canadian Press reported that 100 Kurdish rebels were killed by Turkish F-104s on bombing raids into neighbouring Iraq. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) could not answer my questions about this incident in committee that day. He later sent a letter which said, "It is impossible to confirm whether or not former Canadian aircraft were used by the Turkish Air Force". The Turkish Government would say only that the F-104s were not used in a way which would violate the transfer agreement. That is not good enough.
Those fighter planes would not be in Turkey if it was not for the help of the Conservative Government. Canada has a responsibility to see that those planes are not used for air strikes into neighbouring states. I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to investigate the incident and report to this House. Canadians must be assured that we are not contributing to violence and instability in the Middle East.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, something is drastically wrong with our National Parole Board and the entire parole system. Recent Parole Board decisions have cast serious doubts on its ability to protect Canadians. In the past month two very dangerous individuals were released. It was only after a public outcry that their paroles were revoked.
The latest Parole Board mistake was the release of an individual who was sentenced to nine years for the attempted murder of a Toronto police officer. During sentencing the judge called the act "deliberate, clearly motivated, callous and cold-blooded". Yet the Parole Board released him after he had served only three and a half years. Have these people lost all sense of justice? The Parole Board is in place to protect innocent Canadians, not side with criminals. Individuals who commit severe acts must pay, otherwise our entire justice system will become a joke.
I call on the Government to initiate a thorough review of the criteria and procedures used by the NPB in order that justice be served.



PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, I told the House that as a result of its inaction the Conservative Government sows discontent in all levels of society. The latest examples have to do with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the official languages, the linguistic training programs, and the various Public Service dismantling projects.
As reported by the media, inaptitude at its worst can be seen in the fact that discontent now reaches into Government ranks. The Conservative caucus is divided. This morning we learned that certain members had made unpleasant remarks. Ministers publicly say that members are minor chronic complainers. Newspaper reports indicate that the series of ministerial resignations might be followed by more resignations by members. Next in line to go after the Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) might be the Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), the Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), or the Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). They too know as we do that this Government is unable to provide leadership, and they have lost faith in this Government. They want to exercise their democratic rights as members and representatives of the people, but Ministers tell them to shut up, that they are nothing but minor chronic complainers. It takes a minor boss to know a minor chronic complainer!



ETHNIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Metro Toronto's more than 100,000 Canadians of Greek origin celebrated the 166th anniversary of Greek independence with a magnificent banquet and a huge parade along Danforth Avenue. At the banquet on Saturday night Professor Steve Triantis of the University of Toronto delivered a message for all politicians to heed. He said:
Governments in Canada have underestimated and treated with affront the intelligence and power of the so-called ethnic communities, two-fifths of the population of this country. We shall demand full and equal participation in the political, social, cultural and economic life of this country. We have indications that the federal Government has realized the problem and is taking steps to correct it. We shall be looking for action in particular with regards to appointments to boards and agencies.
The leaders of all political parties should be advised that no ethnic group in Canada holds a monopoly of excellence in brains and education and that political parties that wish to find any excuse for being a charmed circle of the select, rubbing shoulders with each other and taking care of each other, will remain parties of the few.
March 23, 1987



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa has decided not to attend the meetings of First Ministers and Native People to establish aboriginal rights.
The former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, attended those meetings, despite the fact that the Constitution did not recognize the special character and needs of Quebec.
Mr. Levesque recognized his responsibility for 35,000 Indians, 6,000 Inuit and a large number of Metis in his province.
The native peoples want what the people of Quebec want: to be masters of their own fate. Mr. Bourassa should recognize their needs and his responsibility.



ACID RAIN


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa-Quebec agreement on acid rain signed in Montreal last Friday is of course a major event for this country, but even more so for Rouyn-Noranda and the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area.
On March 20, this Government signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec and Noranda Mines to help build a sulphuric acid plant in Rouyn-Noranda at an estimated cost of $125 million, a plant that will help Noranda Mines to reduce its S02 emissions by 50 per cent.
The economic impact will also be quite considerable. Within the next three years 265 jobs will be created, and 55 permanent jobs by 1990.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great victory for the people of my area, because it is the culmination of plans that have been in the works for quite some time. I am proud of the way the Government has discharged its responsibilities in a project that is aimed at improving the quality of life of my fellow citizens.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party is in a panic. The situation is so
bad that in the Province of Alberta the P.C. Leader thinks one of the ways of getting out of their problem is separating from the federal Party. Further exacerbating the anxiety of the Conservatives is the new poll which shows that the people of Edmonton are split across all three party lines. That means that for the first time in a very long time the Liberal Party has a chance of winning seats in Edmonton. The reason for that is that we have been working very closely with the Liberal caucus in Alberta, the finest of the three caucuses there.
With regard to a situation like C-14, who has been speaking for the people of Alberta? Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) spoken out and said that he will not allow services to be taken out of the health care plan in Alberta? No, he has sat back and taken a hands-off position as universal accessibility to medicare for the people of Alberta continues to be threatened.
We in the Liberal Opposition here will be fighting. We will be working closely with our colleagues in the provincial Legislature. We will not only roll back Bill C-14, we will ensure that such an assault on medicare occurs in no other province in the country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, our Government realizes the serious threat of acid rain but it is also committed to assisting the industry in its move to correct this international problem. An example of this commitment was seen Friday with the announcement of a $125 million agreement with Noranda at the Rouyn-Noranda copper smelter. The announced new plant is designed to remove 96 per cent of sulphur dioxide contained in the production gases from the smelter's reactor.
The $41.6 million loan by the federal Government will go a long way to help the company meet the goal of 50 per cent reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions by 1990. Just as important though, this agreement provides stability to the future of the industry and the assurance of 6,000 jobs within this region.
This latest announcement is very good news for the people of northern Ontario and Quebec. It is a fine example of how the Government is meeting the challenge of reducing acid rain emissions while strengthening the industry.

March 23, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We know that the Prime Minister and the Government have caved in on fish, energy, foreign investment, drug prices and softwood lumber. Last week they backtracked on acid rain. Is this week's cave-in the Canadian Arctic?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the cave-in in the Canadian Arctic occurred years before, under a Liberal Government. This Progressive Conservative Government has acted to assert Canada's control and sovereignty over the Arctic.
There were false news reports emanating from a story by Mr. Peter Newman. Those reports were corrected by some conscientious journalists and correct reports appeared in The Ottawa Citizen and The Toronto Star last night. The CBC ran false reports again this morning. I am not sure why the CBC would choose to run those false reports.


UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm that the Canadian Government is not negotiating our sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic? Will he confirm that the price for having the Americans recognize our waters as Canadian waters in our Arctic, not international waters, the price for American recognition of that sovereignty is not an agreement from the Americans not to respect it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition became a little twisted in the expression of his second question. Perhaps he was trying to get unanimity in his whole Party by being confusing as to what he was saying. Here are the facts.
In September, 1985, when we announced the dramatic action to assert Canada's sovereignty over our north, I also indicated that we would be entering into discussions with the United States to see if there was some way we could have an arrangement that would serve their legitimate security interests and respect our sovereignty. Those discussions have been going on since that time and are continuing. I want to make the point that if there is a failure in those discussions, or if we are not satisfied that Canadian sovereignty will be respected, we are prepared to defend our claims to our north before the International Court of Justice, as the former Liberal Government was afraid to do.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister invariably seeks to rewrite Canada's history, but I suggest that Canadians will not be fooled.


REQUEST THAT TEXT OF AGREEMENT BE SUBMITTED TO HOUSE OR TO A COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister guarantee that, before making any kind of Arctic sovereignty agreement with the United States, he will table in the House the text of the agreement so that the House or a committee of the House can make a thorough study to assure Canadians that our waters, our sovereignty, and the full extent of Canadian nationhood in the Great North are protected?


Charles Joseph Clark: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition is unaware of the issues which are already before the House committee.
There have been conversations. My officials have given evidence concerning conversations with the Americans. But as usual, if an agreement is acceptable to us, I intend to consult not only with Members of the House of Commons but also, for instance, with the leaders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Governments. I am already involved in serious consultations with the Government leaders of the two great North Territories with respect to the controversy which Americans call the 1002 question.


NORTHWEST PASSAGE-CONSTRUCTION OF CANADIAN ICEBREAKER
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall at the time of the so-called Arctic icebreaker contract award that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said it was an assertion of Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. It now appears that this may be part of a deal to prevent American ships access to the Passage. Can the Minister allay our fears in this regard and confirm that the construction of this ice-breaker was never discussed with the United States administration?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the construction of the ice-breaker was a Canadian decision-let me say that it was a Progressive Conservative decision since, for years, the Liberal Government refused to face the need to assert our sovereignty in our North.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Hon. Member is asking me if we received or sought permission from the United States to build our ice-breaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did you discuss it with them?
March 23, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: -to defend our sovereignty, no, we did not. That is a Liberal habit, one of several which we got rid of.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY-AMERICANS' ATTITUDE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, he cleverly managed to evade the issue. We have also been advised that affirming our sovereignty over the Northwest passage now depends on the goodwill of President Reagan during his visit in April. Doesn't the Secretary of State, as such, and as a Canadian, find it somewhat insulting that the President should want to negotiate sovereignty over our passage during the Summit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just to be very clear about a point the Hon. Member for Hamilton West shouted from her seat with respect to whether or not I discussed the matter with the United States-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You've got the wrong riding.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hamilton East. I told the Americans what we were doing. I did not ask their permission but I told them we were building an ice-breaker to establish our sovereignty in our north.

There is no connection between the decision to build a Canadian ice-breaker to protect our sovereignty and Mr. Reagan's visit. Our sovereignty is not negotiable. What we have said is that if necessary, the Canadian Government is prepared to go before the International Court of Justice to defend its position. The Liberal Party was not. They were afraid to put the Canadian position and Canadian sovereignty before the International Court of Justice. As far as we are concerned, the age of fear has come to an end.


CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs quite explicitly assure the House that in the negotiations he is having with the United States there are not any discussions or negotiations on the question of Canadian sovereignty, that that is accepted and that the United States has not in fact and will not in fact be given full and free access to Canadian Arctic waters?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said in the House, we have declared our sovereignty over the north, as former Governments declined to do. As I indicated in my statement in the House in September of 1985, we are discussing with the United States the possibility of some arrangement that would
Oral Questions
respect our sovereignty and meet its legitimate security interests. As I said in September of 1985 and as I said again a moment ago in response to the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, if we do not secure an agreement respecting our sovereignty, that is satisfactory to Canada, then those discussions will stop and we will be prepared to defend our sovereignty before the International Court of Justice, as the previous Liberal Government was afraid to do.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Some threat. They don't even recognize it.


NATURE OF DISCUSSIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, what I would like the Minister to reassure us about in this matter is that the kind of discussions taking place do not in fact include full and free access to Canadian Arctic waters, a free passage, by the United States. We simply want the assurance that in no way do those discussions include that possibility.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I presume what the Hon. Member is asking is whether or not, as a result of the discussions, that the United States-I trust she would have the same interest in Soviet passage-that other countries would not be able to pass through our sovereign waters without our permission or agreement. That is the purpose of the negotiations.


SECRET AGREEMENT QUERY
Pauline Jewett: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister still has not answered our question. I wonder, therefore, if he will assure us that there will be no secretly negotiated agreement sprung on the Canadian people at the time of the March 5 and March 6 meeting between President Reagan and the Prime Minister? Can we have the assurance that some secretly negotiated agreement will not be sprung on the Canadian public at that time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the date is April, not March. However, the assurance is categoric. There will be no secret agreement sprung upon anybody. I take very seriously, if I may say so, the obligation on these matters with respect to the North, to be involved in very close consultation with the leaders of northern Governments as well as others. I am involved now in discussions regarding Canada's position, a joint position supported by the territorial Governments, with respect to the 1002 issue in Alaska.
I am hopeful we might be able to get agreement soon from the two territorial Governments to proceed with the ratification of a treaty which has been initialled with respect to the movement of northern caribou across the border between

March 23, 1987
Oral Questions
Alaska and Yukon Territory. It is the practice of this Government, which has asserted northern sovereignty, to consult extensively with all those Canadians who are interested.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. An agreement has been signed, but not ratified, between the United States and Japan concerning the transport of nuclear fuel using Canadian airspace. There are grave concerns about whether a container safe enough to transport these large amounts of plutonium which are being contemplated can ever be built.
In light of those concerns, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs ensure that both those countries know before they ratify that agreement that Canadians and the Government of Canada do not want our airspace to be used for the transport of nuclear fuel?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might have noticed from the newspaper story he obviously read this morning that it is a draft agreement not ratified by either country. In any event, transportation of radioactive material by air is subject to an international convention as well as to Canadian legislation. It is subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and regulations thereunder to the Atomic Energy Control Act and regulations thereunder and to Annex 18 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, so we would have several options if such overflights were proposed. First, we can request that pre-notification be given and that approval be received prior to an overflight, or we can deny an overflight by filing a state difference with ICAO. In either case, of course, we would insist on stringent requirements for packaging and adequate inspection and that everything be observed which is necessary for the transportation of radioactive materials. The hon. gentleman can rest assured that these are all matters which will be insisted upon.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I am sure Canadians will insist that their airspace not be used to transport nuclear fuel.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT-AIR SPACE- CANADIAN POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Government prepared to make the requisite changes in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to ensure that our air space will not be used for the transportation of dangerous materials?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had explained the situation. Obviously the hon. gentleman was not listening to me; he was reading over his supplementary question.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Obviously you did not hear my question.


John Carnell Crosbie: We already have an adequate legislative framework, and we also have the international convention under which we can act in the manner I indicated. We have several options. In addition, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be as vigilant as ever in ensuring that we receive pre-notification and that our views in the matter are known by the countries involved.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION THROUGH ICAO
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it is on the plutonium matter. As the Minister is aware, the U.S.-Japan proposal to endanger Canadian airspace for the routing of 1,000 pounds of plutonium per month is an exercise designed to cut transportation costs, which in turn risks the safety of Canadians. Would the Minister assure the House that Canadian airspace will not be violated by any flying Chernobyls and file a stop order under Article 35, paragraph (b), of the 1944 Chicago Convention of ICAO? The step is quite in order, as I confirmed less than an hour ago with Dr. Michael Milde, Director of the Legal Bureau at ICAO.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has set out the facts, but the Hon. Member asks for an affirmation. Canadian airspace will not be violated.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I would like him to answer whether or not Article 35, paragraph (b), will be used in that stop order. Since the plutonium spillover in Greenland in the 1960s cost over $500 million to clean up, the Palmares, Spain, plutonium clean-up cost over $300 million, and even the Cosmos 954 clean-up cost $10 million, will the Minister request as a bare minimum that an environmental impact statement be prepared and put on file before the Japan-U.S. agreement goes through to ratification?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman finally pointed out at the end of his question that this is an agreement not yet even ratified. Therefore, much of the alarm he is now expressing is certainly premature, to say the best. I have already outlined that under the international convention in question we have several options including denying overflights by filing a state difference with ICAO. We can request, by filing with ICAO,
March 23, 1987

that pre-notification be given and that approval be received prior to such overflights. If and when the agreement is ever ratified, and if and when there is ever a suggestion that there be such an overflight of Canada with such a cargo, we would ensure that these steps are taken, as the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has already stated.


ACID RAIN
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
Following the historic agreement on acid rain signed with Quebec last Friday in Montreal, I would like to ask the Minister what impact building a sulphuric acid plant in Rouyn-Noranda will have on the objectives being pursued by Quebec and Canada in terms of reducing air pollution?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the plant mentioned by the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue is of great importance for the environment. In fact, the federal Government is contributing one third of the cost of financing the project, in other words, nearly $42 million. The plant will make it possible for Noranda Mines to reduce its sulphuric acid emissions by 50 per cent by 1990.
This proves the Government of Canada is prepared to put up funds toward meeting its commitment to reduce acid rain.
The Hon. Member is to be commended for his co-operation. I appreciate this very much.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries said in a November 24, 1986, press release: "We are under no legal obligation to give the French any fish in Canadian waters". Despite no legal obligation, talks will start tomorrow morning, Tuesday morning, with the French Government, in Ottawa, to figure out how much fish to give away to the French for the four-year period from 1988 to 1991. Since the Prime Minister said that no fish would be given to the French unless Newfoundland agrees and Newfoundland has said "no", and since the Minister of Transport has said "not one fish, not one tail, not one head, not one fillet", what is northern cod doing on the agenda of the talks
Oral Questions
with the French Government which start Tuesday morning in Ottawa? We are being gutted again by the Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has already been gutted head on according to his question. He partially quoted the Minister of Fisheries. On November 26 the Minister of Fisheries said:
We have told the French that under the 1972 treaty we have no obligation to provide them with any fish-
And I go on to complete the quotation:
-to replace what they have been catching in the Gulf and, specifically, no obligation to provide them with any northern cod, over and above allocations made under the Fisheries Agreement with the EEC, which expires at the end of 1987.
Our only obligations to the French to give them fish at all were caused by the treaty of 1972, entered into by the Liberal Government of the day, and by the treaty of 1982 entered into with the EEC. I hope the hon. gentleman will apologize when he next gets to his feet.
In addition, at these discussions tomorrow, the hon. gentleman will be happy to know that the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's will be present. There will be a strong Newfoundland delegation. I will have a representative there, and I can assure him that we will be well represented in those discussions.


NORTHERN COD-NEGOTIATION OF QUOTA
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs said today that a quota will be negotiated. The Canadian Embassy in Paris said that a quota will be negotiated. The federal Department of Fisheries said that a quota will be negotiated. Does the Minister really expect Canadian fishermen to believe a Minister who closes Canadian ports after the French have gone home? Can he guarantee us now that the first thing he will do tomorrow morning, during these negotiations, is to remove northern cod from that menu? Let them eat cake.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has been on the menu with the French since 1972 when the Liberal Government, which was supported by the hon. gentleman, put it on the menu in a treaty that has no termination date. It is on the menu every year from now on, indefinitely. It is a Liberal menu put there by the Liberals. That is why it is on the menu.
The hon. gentleman asked about closing the ports. Our Liberal predecessors never closed the ports to French fishing vessels, nor did they ever close Burgeo Bank to French fishing. The next time the hon. gentleman rises to his feet, will he explain to Canadians why in 1982 they signed away 47,500 tonnes of prime northern cod to France and other nations in the European Economic Community? Let us hear no more from the hon. gentleman.

March 23, 1987
Oral Questions HUNTING OF MATURE SEALS


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, last week two East Coast Canadian companies announced that they would be sending ships to the front off the East Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to hunt mature seals. On Saturday the Department of Fisheries and Oceans notified these companies to suspend their operations until further notice. Will the Acting Minister of Fisheries assure these companies and the House today that the Government of Canada will not impede their legitimate operations to harvest a renewable resource? Will he also assure us that we will not see those sealers harassed by so-called anti-seal protesters?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer a question from a mariner who knows what he is talking about, not a baker who does not know what he is talking about.


An Hon. Member:: Let him bake cake.


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope he gets a rise out of that one.
The Fisheries Minister is announcing today that strict controls are being placed on all companies with large vessels participating in the seal harvest this year. They will be permitted to participate. The seal hunt is not illegal in Canada. The Minister is asking for and obtaining a written undertaking that they will take no white coats. In other words, they will not take any baby seals or seals of that age. The Minister is announcing that this is entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Malouf Royal Commission on seals and the sealing industry which found sealing to be a humane and economically significant industry that posed no threat to the seal population. Two inspectors will be placed in each vessel to ensure that the seal hunt is humane and that all regulations are observed. I hope that satisfies the Hon. Member's query.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware that U.S. Energy Secretary John Herrington predicted today that Canada would settle for a downpayment on American action on acid rain that would constitute going ahead with previously selected projects already deemed by the Government of Canada, the EPA and others, to be not in accord with the Envoys' recommendations? Was the Minister aware of this statement by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and is the Prime Minister aware of it? If he is, why did the PM insist on saying today in Quebec that he still regarded what President Reagan committed himself to do last week as a significant commitment
when, in fact, it is not, even by the Minister's own previous analysis?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I am not familiar with the particular quotation from Secretary of Energy John Herrington to which the Hon. Member has referred. All I can do is take at face value what commitment has been given to me directly by the Secretary of Energy that there would be an amendment to the 1988 budget as proposed by President Reagan to Congress, to honour the commitment by the President when he endorsed the Envoys' Report.


CANADIAN POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister look into the Secretary's comments? It appears the American administration is still intent on pulling a fast one on the Government. With that in mind, given the overwhelming evidence, which became even more significant this weekend with the statements by Congressman Gerry Sikorski of the United States, that the enthusiasm which the Government is showing for what President Reagan has done to date is actually harming the cause of those in the U.S. Congress who are seeking real acid rain abatement and not circuses such as we have had to date, will the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment reconsider the message which they are sending to Americans and to Congress that Canada is somehow satisfied with what is going on when no Canadian should be satisfied with what is going on?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member bases his question on a statement made by a Minnesota Democrat, a highly partisan adversary of the President, attacking the President of the United States by way of the Prime Minister of Canada. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives in the United States. They are as capable of regurgitating partisan tripe as are some of the members of the N.D.P., the Hon. Member's own Party. I do not think we should give any more credence to what they say than this House often gives to what they in the NDP say.


U.S. CONGRESSMAN'S STATEMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister who probably knows that one of the key activists on acid rain in the United States Congress is Representative Sikorski. By the way he is also one of Canada's strongest allies and he is quoted as having said over the weekend: "Each time the Prime Minister of Canada sidles up to President Reagan on acid rain, he confuses the American public and diminishes the effective pressure from Congress-"
Will the Deputy Prime Minister have the courage to tell the Prime Minister that it is time to repair the damage which the Prime Minister has done to the cause of acid rain reduction in Canada? Will the Deputy Prime Minister do that?
March 23, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we hear the same rhetoric from the Hon. Member who was a Minister of the Environment and who did nothing to deal with this very important issue. 1 would suggest to the Hon. Member that saddling up is better than saddling away as the Liberals did when they were in office.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to rewrite history, but the record is very clear as to what the Government of Canada achieved before September, 1984. We certainly do not subscribe to that threat.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Tell us.


Charles L. Caccia: Any time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Right now.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will he now urge the Prime Minister to stop taking these backward steps, as indicated by Congressman Sikorski, stop undercutting Congress, which is a very serious development, stop accepting research instead of action, and demand at last a program of acid rain cuts which are meaningful to Canada, at the next summit? Will he do that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not think that there is a big gulf between what the Government is seeking from the Americans and what the Hon. Member is calling for. In Quebec City a few moments ago the Prime Minister of Canada completed a major speech to a very large audience of Americans, on which occasion he articulated with great precision what our position is. We are seeking nothing less than a 50 per cent reduction in the transboundary flow of acid rain from the United States into Canada by 1994, in concert with similar reductions that we are achieving ourselves within Canada through bilateral accords with the provinces.
I do not think it becomes the Hon. Member to stand in this House and quote some partisan tripe from an individual Member of the House of Representatives whose objective is not to add to the sum of knowledge on the subject but rather to subtract from it.


THE ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the tremendous economic difficulties now evident in western Canada. In mid-February I invited the Deputy Prime Minister
Oral Questions
to confirm the existence of the Western Initiatives Office which is now known as the Western Diversification Office. Since at that time he did not acknowledge the existence of the office, will he now tell western Canadians about the Western Initiatives Office, what its budget is and what its mandate is? It is important to western Canada. Can the Deputy Prime Minister now tell us what his plans are and reveal the mandate for that office?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the so-called Western Diversification Office in Winnipeg to which the Hon. Member refers is a figment of the Hon. Member's imagination. If he sticks around in the House this afternoon, I will attempt to outline some of the principles and objectives that we see important in putting together a western economic development and diversification strategy.


Cyril Keeper: There is an office.


MANDATE OF ALLEGED OFFICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe I will give the Minister a second chance, Mr. Speaker. I have here a list of 15 people who work in the Western Diversification Office in Winnipeg on Ellis Avenue. I have their office numbers, their phone numbers from the co-chairman right down to the clerical staff. In light of that-and I will send the Deputy Prime Minister a copy of this list if I may get a Page-will he now confirm that such an office exists and will he tell the House what its mandate is and whether or not it will have independent spending authority for projects in western Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would do well to subscribe to the code outlined by the Leader of the Liberal Party: First, before you ask a question, make sure you know the facts.


BANKS AND BANKING
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He knows that thousands of farmers are facing the loss of their farms this year through foreclosure, many due to the chartered banks illegally charging high interest rates by switching promissory notes that were a fixed rate to a floating rate, as in the case of the Allen Wilford-Royal Bank case last year, who was charged some $300,000 extra. Is the Minister prepared to require that farmers who have been overcharged be repaid these funds?

March 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wishes to give me any specific information relating to this practice, I would be happy to look into it.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. Thousands of farmers have been charged millions of dollars and I am surprised that the Minister would not know about it because the practice has been widely carried out. The Minister of Agriculture in Alberta indicated that he would be glad to intervene. I am surprised that the Minister would not. I wonder if the Minister would direct the Inspector General of Banks to order a full investigation and audit of these practices of the banks and require that the banks repay the farmers and small businessmen who have been overcharged when the banks have illegally switched a promissory note at a fixed rate to a promissory note at a floating rate.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if there are practices that are illegal under the Bank Act, the Inspector General of Banks will be taking every action needed to remedy that. As I indicated in my first response, if the Hon. Member has something that indicates illegal practices are being carried out, I would be very appreciative if he would bring it to my attention.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Several weeks ago the Prime Minister boasted at the University of Waterloo about his Government making us leaders in world technology. However, actions speak louder than words. Why has the Government permitted the closure of the Algonquin Radio Observatory, resulting in the destruction of a first-class scientific team here in Canada? How can this make sense?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, Question Period simply is not long enough for me to point out to the Hon. Member the actions we have taken to make sure that Canada stays with world leaders on the new frontier of science. It was on the recommendation of the scientific community that we will participate in an international effort to establish a telescope in Hawaii where the atmospheric environment is the most ideal in the world and cannot be matched elsewhere. The project is of the size that one country simply cannot afford it by itself.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must know from the NRC memo of October that scientists are in fact deeply opposed to what is being suggested. I ask as a supplementary question why the Government continues to hack away at scientific research in Canada, turning us into what in fact is a scientific tenant in Hawaii.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation the Hon. Member puts on this initiative simply does not coincide with the facts. The council has recommended that we enter into negotiations with several other countries that have embarked on this major international effort to establish the best possible facility on earth to observe the skies. The council has obviously decided that Canada wants to be among the best in the world and that this particular project offers the best chance for that.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns a group of Lebanese individuals who were in the process of being sponsored by Canadian family members in Ottawa. Because of an indifferent and uncaring Minister, these individuals had to be stranded for four days at airports in both Madrid and Athens and are now reportedly in a jail cell in Cyprus.
Why has the Minister refused to negotiate for these people a temporary status in either Spain or Greece? Why has he also refused to issue a ministerial permit allowing these people who are family members of Canadian citizens to enter Canada so that their papers can be processed in safety, rather than risking their lives on a return flight to Lebanon?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I already explained to the Hon. Member for York West a number of times how we proceeded in the case of persons applying for status inside this country. The 17 Lebanese who left Damascus last week were arrested in Madrid because they did not have the documents required to enter Canada. That being the case, we applied the rules that were introduced on February 20. There is absolutely no reason for us to change those rules. Again, I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that according to Canadian policy, certain documents are required before people can have access to the laws by which we are governed. I said so last Friday, and nothing has changed since then.
March 23, 1987


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has shamelessly washed his hands of the entire affair and is placing technicalities before the safety of human lives.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT GIVE IMMEDIATE HELP TO GROUP OF PERSONS INVOLVED
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, again, I want to ask the Minister: Why did he feel so little interest in and compassion for their Canadian relatives, in such critical circumstances that demand passion? Will he agree to provide immediate assistance to this group, and at least keep their Canadian relatives informed of present and future developments?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, last week I told the Hon. Member about the status for which these people applied. Eight applied for immigrant status and did not wait for a reply before leaving Syria. Six applied for visitor status, which was immediately denied. These people did not ask Canada for refugee status, and the Hon. Member wants me to give them a status they did not apply for. Mr. Speaker, when will the Hon. Member understand that this country has certain immigration policies and that they are going to be applied, whether he likes it or not!


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
so that passengers inside can get out. That is their primary and main job and, in addition to that, there are other forces available at the airport and there are plans designed to go into effect to help evacuate passengers. The job of the CFR service is to maintain the foam, get to the aircraft and form a passageway for the passengers to get out. That is their particular job and the regulations and rules are being met in full.

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister expect Canadians to believe that the Government has safety on its mind when he has allowed the Regina airport to operate from midnight until 8 a.m. while very large planes are arriving with no fire-fighters based at the site? How can he expect us to believe that he has safety uppermost in his mind?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, neither Regina airport nor any other is operating without meeting ICAO requirements at least. I would have to investigate the particular situation the hon. gentleman has mentioned but there are airports that do not have full service for a complete 24-hour period. The pilots and airlines are so instructed and know about that. It is then up to them to choose to land after midnight or whenever the service is reduced during the time from midnight onward. That is what I think the situation is, but this has been so for many years and it is so now. Unless some impartial authority can assure me that this is not a safe practice, it will continue. If an impartial, outside authority will report to me that this is not a safe practice, then of course changes will be necessary.


PROVISION OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is about airport firefighters. I am sure the Minister is aware that while 42 flights landed at Pearson International Airport between 10 p.m. last night and 1.30 a.m. this morning, 14 in one half hour alone, there were only five active fire-fighters on duty to respond in the event of a major emergency and this would not help in the evacuation or rescue of passengers. What will the Government do about this deplorable situation regarding safety in the air industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is no deplorable situation in connection with safety in the air industry and there certainly is not in connection with the crash fire rescue service at Pearson or at any other airport where all the rules and regulations laid down by ICAO are being met to the fullest. As a matter of fact, across Canada, not only do we meet the standards at the larger airports but we also exceed them at the smaller airports.
It is not understood properly that the job of the crash fire service is to secure a route from a damaged or crashed aircraft


CHILD CARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who should know that the real crisis in day care means that nine out of 10 children in care are being looked after in unlicensed and sometimes unsafe surroundings. Yet we now know from leaked press reports that the Conservative Government's day care plan does not include national standards for day care facilities. In the words of one advocate, if this goes through, they may find themselves presiding over a day care system which most of us would not touch with a barge pole.
Will the Minister agree today with the Liberal Party that any national day care strategy must include national standards so every Canadian child can be guaranteed a safe and healthy day care experience?

March 23, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will wait for the report to be tabled. At that time it can be considered to its fullest extent.
The Hon. Member asks us to endorse the Liberal Party position. I am not sure what that is. The London Free Press of March 20 said that "child care is not a top priority to Turner". Is that the official policy? Or, is it another policy that the Hon. Member might want to impart to me?


John Napier Turner: Read the whole quote. [Translation]


NEED FOR NATIONAL DAY CARE POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't want to answer the question, because the report in the press which refers to the Conservative day care plan is shamefull, and it is felt as such by all Canadian parents who would like to have a place where their children are looked after.
I would like to ask him once more if he agrees with the Liberal Party that a national day care policy must set national standards to protect our children. If it does not set such standards, all the reports will be absolutely meaningless.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Right Hon. Prime Minister on this issue is not shameful. The position of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare is not shameful. The position of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is not shameful. In the spirit of parliamentary reform, I invite the Hon. Member to await the work of the parliamentary committee. The committee is composed of all Parties in the House of Commons. Surely that is the way Parliament should function. I know the Hon. Member has not been around here very long. She is learning fast, but she needs to learn a lot faster.


BANKS AND BANKING
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In response to a question from the Hon. Member for Algoma today, he indicated that he knew nothing of the activities of the banks regarding floating interest rates and farm loans. I wonder whether he has had a briefing from his staff concerning the Allan Wilford case of some five months ago where Mr. Justice Galligan ruled something in the order of $300,000 more was collected by the bank than it had the power to collect. Similar situations are surfacing in a great number of provinces. Will the Minister follow up on the promise of his Minister of State
for Finance on Friday to look into this and give a full report to the House?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member has to get up a second time on this for his own reasons. However, he was told specifically by the Minister of State for Finance that he would be given an answer. I believe he was also spoken to outside the House. It was promised an answer would be forthcoming in the very near future.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since this has been an issue for some five months, does the Minister not have an answer and a briefing of his own to decide whether or not the Bank Act is being adhered to as was intended during its writing in 1980?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there has been a court decision on this matter. It is being reviewed by the Department. My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, is directly responsible. As I indicated, the answer will be forthcoming as was twice promised to the Hon. Member by the Minister of State for Finance last Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou. Just one question, please!


FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Ever since the Conservative Government came to power, it promised to look at the role and mandate of the Federal Development Bank. We had national consultations conducted by the former Minister of State (Small Busineses), the Nielsen task force study, and today, we still don't know what the Government's policy is.
Could the Minister inform the House when he is going to announce his policy on financing assistance for small businesses, and could he let us know why his department is hiding a consultation report that was printed in the fall of 1985?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we will make the announcement when we are ready to do so.
March 23, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. This will be the last question.


REVENUE CANADA
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and concerns the business investment tax credit audits in western Canada. The Minister will be aware that his Department is questioning the value of farm equipment traded in. These values were fairly determined in the market-place by individuals dealing at arm's length. The Department has been substituting its own arbitrary opinion. Will the Minister instruct his officials to abandon this arbitrary and dangerous departure from the previously established practice of not investigating bona fide market-place values between individuals dealing at arm's length?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague and indeed from others in this House who have expressed concern about the investment tax credit and capital cost audit. We have been looking at the situation across the country, not just in western Canada. As a result of representations such as this from my colleagues, we have instructed our Department to pause in this audit activity to make certain a fair and reasonable approach is being taken. We will then reassess the situation at that time.


THE LATE HON. WALTER GORDON
Mr. Speaker:: It is my unhappy responsibility to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the death of the Hon. Walter Gordon, a distinguished former Member of this House and member of the Privy Council. It would be appropriate to hear comments and I call upon the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I walked into the House at 2.15, I learned of the death of Walter Gordon on Saturday. He was well known to several Members of this House of Commons having sat as the Hon. Member for Davenport from 1962 to 1968, and having served as Minister of Finance from 1962 to 1965 in the Government of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
Prior to his election to the House of Commons he had a very distinguished career. He was one of our country's leading chartered accountants and one of its first management
The Late Walter Gordon
consultants, first with the firm of Clarkson Gordon, and then Woods Gordon. He was perhaps best noted prior to his election to this House as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, 1955. That was an immense piece of work which influenced economic thinking in this country for the following generation.
Since his retirement from public life he has had a very remarkable career. He was Chancellor of York University, one of the founders of the Committee for an Independent Canada, President of Canadian Corporate Management, a hugely successful Canadian-owned company. Among his major interests he was a Director of The Toronto Star. He was an author. Most of us have read some or all of his books such as, Troubled Canada, A Choice for Canada, Storm Signals, A Political Memoir, What is Happening to Canada.
Mr. Gordon was among those people who considered public service to be the highest calling in a free country. I think I can say that he has been the most influential of our Canadian economic nationalists. He was a pioneer in seeking an economically independent Canada. I can tell you that he was deeply concerned by the current free trade negotiations. An open letter he wrote to me on the pages of The Toronto Star last October had this paragraph:
I have long been convinced that a large majority of Canadians wants our country to remain free and independent, or as free and independent as is practicable in this interdependent world. Certainly we do not wish ever to become part of the United States or to agree to policies that could lead in that direction such as the proposed free trade deal.
He cared passionately as well for the dispossessed and disadvantaged of this country and, although born to relatively easy circumstances, devoted a good deal of his professional and political life to re-establishing a better equality in our country. We knew him as a man of tremendous ability, of sensitive manners, warm personality and infectious sense of humour. Perhaps the words which might characterize him superbly would be "a civilized man".
Liberals remember him as one of the seminal influences of the renewal of this Party from 1958 to 1968. He was among our best loved figures. Denis Smith qualified him in his biography of Mr. Gordon as "that gentle patriot". He loved this Canada he served so well and with such altruistic distinction.
In personal terms, Mr. Speaker, I was proud to have known him well, to have counted him as a friend and a counsellor. On my own behalf, on behalf of the Party I lead, and on behalf of a legion of friends across Party boundaries, I offer to his widow Liz and their three children our heartfelt condolences and our total admiration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one did not have to agree with all of the works and attitudes of Walter Gordon to share a profound

March 23, 1987
The Late Walter Gordon
respect for his contribution to his country, his Party, and this Parliament. He was a man of outstanding accomplishment in both public and private life. On behalf of the Government, my Party, and my Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) I want to associate myself with the words uttered by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
We all felt a great sadness when we learned of the death of Walter Gordon. He combined outstanding careers in both the public and private sectors. As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said, he was one of Canada's leading chartered accountants and then became one of our leading management consultants.
However, it was really in the public sector, in the service of the country, that Walter Gordon most distinguished himself; first as a Royal commissioner of a vast, often controversial, but highly imaginative and wholly Canadian commission into the economic future of our country; then as a cabinet Minister; and then not simply as an architect of the rebirth of the Liberal Party in the early days of the 1960s but, more than that, as the force around whom the reformers who wanted to bring new life and new perspective to that Party gathered, the active force which gave it direction. He was, of course, a committed and persuasive Canadian nationalist.
I think of Walter Gordon as a reformer, a man who was prepared to challenge old ideas and also prepared to work to change them. I think of him as a man of honour who was prepared to follow the highest dictates of Canadian parliamentary life, even when they were difficult for him to follow. Throughout his life he was a thorough gentleman, a model for others in public life, a model for Canadians through time. On the Prime Minister's behalf and on behalf of all those in my Party, I want to express our condolences to his widow and family and our respect for the example he has given this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on this very sad day in this tribute to the Hon. Walter Gordon. Everything that has been said about him is so true. If I may, for just a moment I would like to put a personal perspective on what has been said.
The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the way in which Walter Gordon gave direction and courage to the reforming element in the Liberal Party. I was in the Party at that time and he was certainly the beacon for me as well as for many others who joined the Party then. It began for me at the Kingston Conference and continued right through our common period in the House of Commons.
For example, when I was a back-bencher in the fifth row on the far side I sat almost directly behind Walter Gordon. Walter would bring together an interested group of young Turks, as we were sometimes called, who were interested in
genuine social and economic reform in Canada. He would have meetings with us at regular intervals and include us in discussions on any Bills he was going to bring into Parliament. I can remember Bills on the establishment of the Economic Council of Canada and many other measures while he was Minister of Finance. He made us feel very much a part of the system. I am speaking of many years ago; 1963, 1964, and 1965.
It was during this period also that he encouraged us to really think, some of us for the very first time, about what Canada really meant, about our slide into continentalism, about our need for an independent economic strategy, our need for Canadian ownership of resources and secondary manufacturing, and our need for an independent Canadian foreign policy. There were touches of this, of course, in the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects in the late 1950s and again at the Kingston Conference, but they came to full bloom during his period as Minister of Finance and after that in the House of Commons in the 1960s.
Indeed he was "a gentle patriot" as Professor Denis Smith called him in his biography. 1 guess that is one reason why even those who disagreed with him loved him. He was really universally loved in this country; perhaps not always as loved south of the border from time to time, but always respected. His leadership in forming and developing the Committee for an Independent Canada, of which I and many other Members here today were early or founding members, was incredibly strong. He did alert the Canadian public to the need for a genuine independent Canadian economic strategy and as complete as possible Canadian ownership of the economy.
He was as concerned also with the disadvantaged. His appeals for social progress were as strong as his appeals for economic independence and an independent foreign policy. He had an enormous impact on so many of us. It was really a shock, since I was talking to him not long ago, to learn that he died on Saturday. It is a great loss to Canada and, indeed, to all members of all Parties, not only in Canada but in many other parts of the world.
On behalf of all New Democrats, who, I may say, in the 1960s thought very highly of Walter Gordon too and tried to urge him to come over, I would like to say how sad we are at his dying and how very much we want to send our compassionate best wishes to his widow Liz and the family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, Walter Gordon was the Member of Parliament until 1968 for Davenport. He came to Ottawa in 1962 and was instrumental with former Prime Minister Pearson in the return of the Liberal Party to Government in the early 1960s. Walter Gordon fought many battles. He was motivated by a strong sense of justice in providing Canadians a worth-while social security system. He was motivated by a strong dedication to the protection of the less strong in society. He was a strong
March 23, 1987

player in the movement for strengthening Canadian ownership of our economy. He was an instigator of a broad policy which eventually resulted in the formation of the Canada Development Corporation, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the National Energy Program.
Walter Gordon was a man of great integrity, honesty, and dedication to the public interest. He was reserved and even shy, but motivated by a strong passion for Canada which we, as new Canadians in Toronto, readily understood. Walter Gordon leaves a vacuum in the movement for maintaining Canadian independence. He leaves a vacuum in the movement for disarmament and peace. He leaves a vacuum in the movement by Canadians who are dedicated to the protection and strengthening of Canadian sovereignty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to stand for one minute's silence.
[ Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom:
That this House condemns the government for its lack of a long term economic development strategy for Western Canada that would, among other things,
(1)	address the severe hardships being faced by the agricultural sector, especially as it relates to depressed grain prices, which have devastated the farm community;
(2)	deal effectively with the problems of the forest industry and in particular, the need to conserve and manage the forest resource for future generations;
(3)	come to terms with the need for realistic and pragmatic policies to revive the energy sector, whose decline has created such hardships for average Albertans;
(4)	commit the government to pursuing policies that would assist in the economic diversification of the economy and the growth of secondary manufacturing;
and that the lack of such commitments by the government to Western Canada will result in a continuation of the unacceptably high levels of unemployment and economic hardship suffered by the people of Western Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) had the floor at the time of the recess. I recognize the Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in resuming debate on this very important motion that has been presented by the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), let me say that one of the characteristics of the New Democratic Party that occasionally troubles me is their penchant for doom and gloom and negativism. The House will recall that when we announced the $1 billion grain assistance program it was greeted with
Supply
derision, if not outright condemnation by the New Democratic Party. Immediately they set out to try to sow the seeds of mistrust and skepticism by suggesting to Canadians and farmers in particular that it would not happen and would only consist of money coming from other agricultural programs, that it would be taken out of the stabilization program, that it would be a loan, or it would be provincial moneys. They wanted to know whether it was new money and where we would find it.
If one looks at Hansard beginning with October 3, 1986, one can see that it is filled with these vicious attacks on the Government, particularly on the Prime Minister, for coming to the aid of western Canadian farmers. That sort of misleading conduct is shameful, especially at a time when we are all trying to do our best to deal with these issues.
The fact is that the money is being received in a manner that has been recommended by the producers. Never before in the history of the country have we seen the kind of cooperation and support from the agricultural community about how to deal with this very important issue. That dialogue is continuing in spite of what my good colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), refers to as the nattering nabobs of negativism. The work is going on with the agricultural community. After the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) met with 55 farm representatives representing 35 farm organizations, he issued a press release on March 5 indicating that progress is being made. We must put these things into perspective.
All of us know that the problems facing western Canada are not simple or easy to resolve. It will require a coherent longterm approach involving government, business, labour, and all sectors of the economy. That will have to be balanced with firm and aggressive action on the international front.
Our Party began that process during the recession in 1983, recognizing even then the challenges and obstacles facing the west. Our efforts culminated in the Prince Albert Declaration which contained a broad range of policies which would promote economic development in the key sectors of the western region. Some 52 specific commitments were made at that time. Of 16 commitments made in agriculture, 14 have been fulfilled. There were 12 commitments made in energy and 10 of them were fulfilled. There were nine commitments in forestry, seven of which have been fulfilled. There were six commitments in mining and four have been fulfilled. Of nine commitments in grain transportation, eight have been fulfilled. That represents 43 out of 52 commitments that have been fulfilled.
Since assuming office many other initiatives have been taken to meet urgent questions, such as the drought payments, the question of action on imports of beef from the EEC and others, and the removal of the unfair energy taxes in the energy sector. The removal of the farm fuel tax works out to some 33.75 cents per gallon. I was interested to note that the

March 23, 1987
Supply
Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville advocated an increase in farm fuel prices because he was talking about a floor price for oil which would have the effect of driving up prices.
Our action on interest rates is another major element. In 1982-83, the interest rates were hovering at 22 per cent to 24 per cent. Today, the Bank of Canada rate is down to 7.14 per cent, the lowest in 14 years. We have provided the capital gains exemption for farmers, introduced interest rate reduction programs and debt review boards. We amended the Western Grain Transportation Act and amended the Grain Stabilization Act. We dismantled the National Energy Program and dismantled FIRA. We removed the confiscatory back-in provision.
There have been many initiatives, none of which singularly and perhaps collectively are a magic panacea, but they do represent a substantial improvement. The Prince Albert Declaration demonstrated our government's commitment to address the challenges facing western Canada. We addressed the issues on the basis of building upon our strengths, and the success in fulfilling those commitments provides us with building blocks on which to take further steps.
Since 1984, many other initiatives have been taken in concert with the Prince Alberta Declaration. As the United States-European Economic Community grain subsidy war escalated, we provided $1 billion worth of relief. We accelerated the removal of the PGRT. We worked out a deal with the U.S. on softwood and lumber. That deal was supported by all western premiers. We launched the historic trade initiative, of crucial significance to western Canada.
We have initiated the new National Transportation Act. Again, the Hon. Member said three or four times that there is a need to address the transportation problems and the discriminatory features of our current transportation system. Once and for all, with the passage of the new National Transportation Act, freight rate discrimination in western Canada will be a thing of the past. Why are the New Democrats against it? The two very fundamental matters we are addressing in western Canada, the trade issue and the transportation issue, are being fought right to the wall by the NDP and they should be ashamed of themselves.
We have embarked upon ways and means to utilize western coal in Ontario to a greater extent. Contracts have been awarded to Microtel Systems in British Columbia for high technology equipment for the North Warning Systems. The CF-5 contract was awarded to Winnipeg, with spin-off benefits to Edmonton. The CF-18 contract had corresponding spin-off benefits to Edmonton. The minting of the new dollar coin was awarded to Sherritt-Gordon in Fort Saskatchewan. These are all important elements in diversifying western Canada's economy.
We have signed federal-provincial agreements in all four provinces covering urban development, irrigation, tourism,
agricultural processing, industrial development, science and technology, forestry and small business. Since the new year we have announced that Versatile Pacific will build a new Polar 8 ice-breaker at a cost of something in the order of $350 million, a very major initiative. We have announced $100 million in canola oil purchases for Food Aid. We have facilitated and supported the sale of Versatile Farm Equipment which will reestablish itself on a permanent basis in Winnipeg. It will be good for western Canada and good for the western Canadian farmer.
We have made a number of announcements with respect to forestry. My colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), announced a $13 million program with his B.C. counterpart for the establishment of a Canada-British Columbia forest resource development agreement, as well as a science and technology exchange program. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) announced the establishment of a Pacific Rim national park on Vancouver Island.
These are all very important initiatives. Time does not permit me to go on in more detail. Suffice it to say that we will continue to identify and work with the provinces and industry in dealing with these very important issues.
I wish to deal quickly with the issue of energy because it has been raised. I was rather interested in the proposal emanating from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) which, as I see it, would drive up the price of fuel, in particular farm fuel. I can advise the House that discussions have been taking place in an intensified way with the Government of the Province of Alberta, and other provincial Governments, as well as with industry, in an attempt to deal with the energy sector and the very difficult period it is going through. We have discussed the need to attract investment capital and the need to stimulate drilling, exploration and development. I can advise the House that these talks are going very well. I am sure that within the not too distant future there will be a major announcement with respect to addressing the needs of the energy sector in western Canada.
With respect to western diversification, over the past two and a half years we have responded to the situation, albeit in very tight financial circumstances. I note that the Hon. Member talked about the difficulties that provinces were having with respect to deficits. Because the Hon. Member played a part in creating the burden of debt that was inflicted upon the Canadian people during the four years he and his Party supported the Government of the day formed by the Liberal Party, he should know that the net public debt increased from $85 billion to $200 billion in those four years. That is scandalous. Now the Hon. Member and his Party sympathize with the provinces, but they are indeed the architects of huge deficits.
It is interesting to note as well that the NDP Budget in Manitoba hits the lower income people the hardest.


Cyril Keeper: That is untrue.
March 23, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra's Budget will impose a 21 per cent tax increase on a single mother earning $27,000 per year. I say shame.


Cyril Keeper: That is deliberately untrue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We recognize that more needs to be done to renew and re-energize the economy of western Canada. We intend to build on our previous efforts in a comprehensive and orderly fashion.
Last September's Speech from the Throne committed the federal Government to placing special emphasis on diversifying the economic base of western Canada, a pledge that has since been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Western Canada has a wealth of resources: physical, capital and human. The federal Government is committed to playing a leadership role in harnessing those resources and overcoming the obstacles and the challenges which confront us.
As I have indicated in this Chamber before, the Government will be coming forward shortly with a western economic initiative as a fundamental component of its regional development strategy. This initiative will provide a framework for growth across western Canada. It is being developed consistent with the Government's broad economic agenda as outlined in November, 1984, under the agenda for economic renewal. Our objective will be to continue to seek new opportunities for traditional resource sectors, whether it be through increased value-added and secondary processing in livestock, forestry and mining or crop diversification, aquaculture, market penetration or productivity enhancement. If the resource sectors are to continue to play an important role in our economy we must improve our access to world markets. In that connection it is important to pare down the barriers to trade. At the same time our objective will be to identify those opportunities in newly emerging high technology sectors, and the key secondary and service sectors such as petrochemicals, aerospace, transportation, tourism and financial services.
We believe that western Canada has the potential to become a world leader in technology in the areas of medical research, biotechnology, micro-electronics and others. We must recognize these opportunities and work with the provincial Governments, with industry and our universities to achieve that potential. Specific initiatives contained in the western development package will be announced in due course. It will reflect the following guiding principles. The private sector will be seen as the engine of economic growth. Trade enhancement and the removal of obstacles to growth are indeed an important component of this initiative. We must create a positive climate of investment to attract new investment capital into western Canada. Our emphasis will also be on increasing productivity and technological development. Above all, and consistent with all this, the necessity for federal co-operation will be a must.
These are but a few of the corner-stones which I would like to elaborate upon further. Unfortunately, time does not permit.
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I will give the Minister a chance to elaborate on his points further. I asked him a question during Question Period today about the Western Diversification Office. I have a memo on the matter here in my hand. The office is located on the fourth floor of the Canadian Institute of Industrial Technology Building at 435 Ellis Avenue, which is the NRC building in Winnipeg. I have a list of the 15 people who are supposedly working in the office, including the chairperson, John Blackwood, and the other cochairperson, Anthony Reynolds. Mr. Blackwood is the cochairman for resource industries. Mr. Reynolds is the cochairman for manufacturing and services. Also on the list I have the names of the support service staff. As I have said, there are 15 names listed here, plus the names of those who work in the data centre and the processing centre. I have their room numbers and their phone numbers.
I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he can elaborate as to what it is these people do. My understanding is that they have been in these facilities for a couple of months. When I asked the Minister about this in February, he did not really confirm or deny their existence. But in Question Period today he said that these people are a figment of my imagination. If they are a figment of my imagination I would like him to explain this great mystery to us. Can the Minister elaborate on what it is these people do and what their mandate is? Are these people working on his western economic initiative, his western development package? If so, for how long? Will they be given any more spending authority and so on? We in western Canada would be very interested to know exactly what the Government is planning.
I understand from talking to key people that they originally planned to used a slick audio-visual presentation to kick this off across western Canada. That was the plan. Has the plan been scuppered? Why is the Minister saying that this is a figment of my imagination? Is this just another snow job with a fancy title? I think these people are doing the same jobs as are currently being done by the people who work in DRIE, which is the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Is the work being done by the same people but with a fancy western title for political reasons for the Conservative Party in western Canada? If not, please tell us what they are doing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member insists on perpetrating falsehoods and inaccurate statements. First, I did not suggest that the people were a figment of his imagination. I am not sure what people he is talking about. I said that the diversification office was a figment of his imagination. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) suggests that what the Hon. Member is talking about is the Industrial Technology Centre and the fact that these are NRC people. There is absolutely no truth or foundation whatsoever to what the Hon. Member is talking about. There is no diversification office in Winnipeg. I can tell the Hon. Member that right here and now.

March 23, 1987
Supply
The fact of the matter is that there is work going on through the general provisions of the Regional Industrial Expansion office. It is putting together some suggestions and some ideas. There are other groups in PCO putting together some ideas. The Hon. Member's suggestion that we have already put people in place and are planning a slick advertising campaign is the kind of nonsense and balderdash that really confuses people and distorts debate in this House. I wish the Hon. Member would stop doing that.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would not check more deeply than just the notes given to him by his researchers. This office is in my riding in Winnipeg. We have received calls from people who work in that office. They have described it as a western initiative or western development department or branch project. So I would call upon the Minister to look deeper into this matter.
At the same time, would he re-examine the statement he made just a few moments ago in which he claimed the Manitoba Budget hit the poorest hardest? That is clearly a distortion and a complete falsehood with regard to the real impact of that Budget.
I think the Minister is basing his comments upon reports in the Winnipeg Free Press or Winnipeg Sun the day after the Budget, so I can understand how he has been misled. However, he should know that that Budget hits upper income earners hard, while at the same time giving a break to poor Manitobans. I would ask the Minister to check his facts.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, first, I do not have to rely on anyone to make my notes. I make my own notes. My answers are still the same. I do not care who is calling whom or under what name they are calling it. I repeat, there is no Western Diversification Office in Winnipeg, and I will repeat it again and again and again. That sort of question does not really deserve the dignity of any further response.
In terms of the Hon. Member's accusation that I am distorting, I do not know how I could outdo Hon. Members opposite. They are the champions of distortion. I welcome the opportunity to read again into the record from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 22. Its headline reads: "NDP budget hits lower income hardest". The article reads in part:
Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra's budget will impose a 21-per-cent tax
increase on a single mother earning $27,600 a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister has-


Cyril Keeper: That is a distorted report.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I am sure the House would like to hear what the Hon. Member for Algoma has to say.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I think the debate so far has indicated that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) does in fact have a task force or team working in the NRC building in Winnipeg. I think it is really sad, when we have a research laboratory set up there, that we have filled it with a bunch of bureaucrats. I do not mind the bureaucrats working to develop a western diversification program. However, to take up the space which is supposed to be filled by NRC researchers, is really a waste of the NRC's ability and capacity. The Minister should get that lab working on high-tech and doing the things for which it was designed rather than have it simply populated by a group of bureaucrats.
When the Minister does announce his western diversification program, which, as he indicated a few weeks ago in The Western Producer, he would be announcing some time later this spring, would he restore the full $2 billion which was cut from the DRIE budget per year so that this proper western diversification can take place, as well as diversification in other areas?
I have two quick questions relating to the whole oil industry. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not provide the loan guarantee which was asked for by Syncrude on a 50-50 basis with the Alberta Government? And can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did not provide in the Budget the earned depletion allowance which groups like IPAC indicated would have a net cost of some $60 million, would create some 20,000 jobs, and would provide an extra 2,000 wells of employment and production this year? Could the Deputy Prime Minister clarify to western Canadians and to Members of this House why the Government declined to support those two desperately needed projects?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the Hon. Member opposite. He and I came to the House at the same time. He is smart enough and a good enough politician not to have to borrow the claptrap from the New Democratic Party to pose a question.
I will tell him again that there is no Western Diversification Office in Winnipeg writing a policy for western economic diversification. I will tell the Hon. Member where the policy is being written. It is being written in my office with the help of DRIE and other officials, and essentially in consultation with western Members of Parliament. Members opposite can continue to talk all they want. Whatever western diversification plan comes forward will certainly not come from that office, I can tell them that right now.
With regard to Syncrude, first, the Hon. Member should know that Syncrude never asked the federal Government to participate. It was the provincial Government which asked the federal Government to participate. There was considerable federal participation in the Syncrude project heretofore. There is another phase of the Syncrude project coming on later and there was a clear indication they would be interested in federal Government assistance on the further phase.
March 23, 1987

Another reason is the fact that this would have only assisted that particular project, and it was deemed very important, as the Hon. Member indicated in his third question, to address the issues of the conventional oil industry, the need to have further exploration and development and additional equity investment so that that development could go on. It was in that context that we set out to work with the industry and with the provincial Government to try to come up with a package which would serve to revitalize the energy sector both in the interests of Alberta and in the national interests from the standpoint of having adequate supply and security of supply, plus the creation of many jobs, as the Hon. Member has indicated.


Mr. Shields:: Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is aware, of course, the national energy policy which was imposed on western Canada and on the resources of western Canada by the Liberal Party, and supported wholeheartedly and up front by the New Democratic Party, created a tragic period of wasted human resources and missed opportunities for harnessing our energy wealth. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will also know that on January 30 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) called together all the Ministers of Energy across the country to sit down and talk. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would like to comment on those two facts?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reiterate the very severe damage which was inflicted upon western Canada at the hands of the Liberals and New Democrats who imposed the National Energy Program. There was not one tax, there were several taxes; the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the incremental oil revenue tax, the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the petroleum compensation charge, the export tax and the Canadian ownership service charge, all of which raided the energy sector of western Canada to the tune of $4.5 billion to $5 billion a year. We are not raiding the industry any more, we are helping it, and we will continue to help it so it will be able to provide the kind of supply necessary for Canadians and generate the kind of jobs which are necessary.
The Western Accord which was put together clearly was put together with the blessing of the producing provinces, and, indeed, the industry. The dramatic decline in prices forces us back to do something more, and we are, we have, and we will.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like to address particularly the neglect of the forest industry by this Government and, of course, since I come from British Columbia, I am particularly concerned about the consequences of that neglect.
The Minister who just spoke said that most of the promises had been carried out, including forestry. I do not know what he had in mind. As I look at the promises, I see that on July 5, 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in Prince Albert that a Conservative Government would "recognize the
Supply
overwhelming economic importance of the forest industry". In their election handbook and in other speeches which the Prime Minister gave, they promised to "establish a new department of forestry at the federal level". We all cheered that because we thought, considering that this was Canada's largest export and the importance it had for all exports, that the neglect of the forest industry by previous Governments would at last be redressed. One of the most important ways in which it could be redressed would be to have a line department, not just a Minister of State, in Ottawa which would have as its full responsibility the development of the forest industry, silviculture, reforestation, and forest management in Canada.
We have been waiting since 1984 for a full department of forestry to be developed. All we got was a Minister of State for Forestry who has no real clout either in Cabinet, because he does not have a full department, or in the country. Indeed, the role he might have played on behalf of forestry has been even further diminished by the fact that he is also Minister of State for Mines. He has a dual role, and the mining industry is in about as bad a shape as the forest industry and probably needs fuller attention from the federal Government than it has been given. When the Government talks about having carried out its election promises, including the forestry field, I must ask why we still do not have a full-fledged department of forestry at the federal level.
The reports we have been receiving recently on the forest industry particularly in British Columbia are alarming, to put it mildly. I should like to refer to the most recent report a couple of months ago of the forest economics and policy analysis project of the University of British Columbia under Peter Pearse and written by Sten Nilsson. He pointed out in the report that unless immediate steps were taken to revitalize the forest industry, B.C. was 15 years away from an economic disaster. The report warned that there would be few, if any, plywood mills in the province and that the production of lumber, pulp, and newsprint would decline seriously. It also indicated that nearly 7,000 more direct jobs would disappear, that is, on top of the 17,000 or more direct jobs which have already disappeared in the forest industry.
He also pointed out in the study that the annual volume of timber available in B.C., which is now about 75 million cubic metres, would decline to 67 million cubic metres and, even with productivity improvements, it would mean a 5 per cent to 10 per cent decline in pulp and a 5 per cent drop in lumber. The report went on to indicate that the timber volume could dip as low as 44 million cubic metres with catastrophic results.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the report indicated that most plywood plants in B.C. would close by the year 2000, and that a switch from bulk commodity products to greater value added products was necessary. However, we see very little movement in that direction.
Most significant of all is that the report indicates that the industry needs to invest $35 billion by the year 2000 in reforestation and modernization but that it "cannot generate

March 23, 1987
Supply
sufficient capital". This is perhaps the most serious component in the picture of the B.C. forest industry.
I mentioned a moment ago the unemployment which has already taken place in the forest industry and that the UBC report projected that it would continue at an accelerating rate. Returning for a moment to the promises of the Government, it promised jobs, jobs, jobs. I assume that meant jobs in western Canada and in eastern Canada-indeed, in all parts of Canada. It is absolutely incredible that the unemployment rate in British Columbia is now running at 13.3 per cent, seasonally adjusted, as opposed to a national average of 9.6 per cent.
Let us look at some of the areas of the province in detail. We see that unemployment is running at about 18 per cent in the Kootenays; at about 17 per cent to 18 per cent in the interior, in the Okanagan and Kamloops; at over 12 per cent on Vancouver Island; at 14 per cent in Prince George and the northern interior; and, perhaps one of the most amazing statistics of all, at 14 per cent in the lower mainland, greater Vancouver. In fact, in February of this year it was 14.3 per cent, the highest unemployment in any major metropolitan centre. Youth unemployment in British Columbia is running at 22 per cent. There have not been jobs, jobs, jobs.
Some of us at least hoped that as a result of the federal Government's export tax on softwood lumber in the deal worked out with American lumber producers, a deal we questioned very much at the time, the revenue, which in the case of B.C. would amount to between $360 million and $400 million per year, would go into silviculture, reforestation, and the adjustment needs of workers. We hoped that it would be at last a shot in the arm to the forest industry. The Government, in the creation of the Canada-B.C. Forest Resource Development Agreement, will actually pump in $18 million this year, which will be matched by B.C. When we saw what would be the results of the federal export tax on softwood lumber in revenues, it seemed to many of us on this side of the House that at last some genuine effort could be or would be made to see to the redevelopment of the forest industry.
It was extremely disappointing, as I stated on Friday in the House, to discover that the British Columbia Government was putting only $36 million in new money into silviculture, reforestation, and so on. I know that it has been indicated in the Budget and in some of the speeches of the B.C. Minister of Finance that the amount is $54 million. As I mentioned, $18 million of that is the part that would automatically be going into forestry under the Canada-B.C. Forest Resource Development Agreement-that $18 million is not new money that could have come out of the federal export tax-leaving only $36 million. Yet, as I say, the export tax on softwood will bring somewhere between $360 million and $400 million. No wonder the British Columbia Government was able to cut its deficit. It simply put what we firmly believe are federal moneys, it is a federal tax, into general revenues in order to do other things and reduce the deficit. The response to this activity by the Socred Government from the forest industry itself has been extremely critical.
In last Friday's Vancouver Sun we find;-
Spokesmen for both management and labour said they are "disappointed" that more revenue from the $350 million tax on softwood lumber exports to the U.S. is not going directly into silviculture.
The harshest critic of the reforestation plan was International Woodworkers of America Regional President Jack Munro, who said the provincial Government has failed to live up to its responsibility to B.C.'s primary engine of economic growth.
"There could be all kinds of jobs in the forest industry, not just silviculture and reforestation, but secondary industries, manufacturing, products that haven't even been thought of yet," Munro said.
He said the revenues earned from the lumber-export tax should have been invested more heavily in the forest industry.
"We don't have enough nurseries, we don't have enough trees, and in the nurseries we do have they're shutting down," Munro said.
Mike Apsey, president of the Council of Forest Industries of B.C., also expressed regret the provincial Government did not commit more funds from the exports revenue to reforestation.
"If there is a disappointment, that's it," Apsey said. "All of the forestry community in this province has been recommending some sort of fund be set up into which the export tax proceeds would be put."
Art Gruntman, vice-president of the Canadian Paperworkers Union said putting most of the $350 million into general revenue instead of reforestation is "utterly and totally wrong."
I think the people of B.C. have the right to expect that the major part of the export tax money be put into reforestation because it has got to be done. We are running out of trees."
The point in quoting these sources in the forest industry, Madam Speaker, is that they say they expect to see a large part, if not all, of the revenues from the export tax on softwood going into the forest industry. That was certainly the expectation of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) who herself, on February 5, referred to British Columbia as a silvicultural slum. Surely it you want to remedy the situation, if you want to see a development in forestry and if you want to try to curb the growth of unemployment in the forest industry sector, then you, the federal Government, when federal money is going into the province, should have required some performance guarantee. The federal Government should have at least said in a written agreement with the province, and with the other provinces as well that receive revenues from the export tax, that x amount of money will go to the forest industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister said on Friday that that would be dictating. The federal Government, when it is spending federal moneys, whether in health care or, in the old days, in post-secondary education, sets guidelines for the expenditure by the provinces of those moneys. I do not hear people objecting and saying that this is dictating if it is in the field of health care, which presumably, according to the BNA Act, is a field of provincial jurisdiction. Yet somehow or other the Conservative Party is saying, "You cannot have some kind of performance guarantee on the expenditure of revenues from a federal export tax". That is absolutely ridiculous, Madam Speaker. As I said on Friday, the Prime Minister has been conned, taken, by Premier Vander Zalm who is laughing all the way to the bank as he uses these moneys for other purposes or to cut his deficit.
March 23, 1987

1 am reminded very much of the comparable situation in post-secondary education. Elon. Members well know that until the Liberal Government, supported by the Tory Opposition, changed the rules a decade ago, the moneys sent from the federal Government to the provincial Governments for postsecondary education under the fiscal arrangements Act had to be spent on post-secondary education. Since then the provinces can spend that money any way they please.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Not really.


Pauline Jewett: Pretty well. Indeed, in the case of British Columbia-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There was an amendment to the statute, remember?


Pauline Jewett: I will come to the amendment in a moment. The amendment simply states that there has to be tabled in the House-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Correct.


Pauline Jewett: I was here and voted for the amendment. There has to be a tabling in the House of the ways in which the money is expended, simply a tabling. We had a further amendment which required that the money be spent for the purposes intended. The federal Government is giving up responsibility, except in the field of health and a few others, for ensuring that federal moneys are spent, at least to a substantial extent, for the purposes intended. That is exactly what should have been done. I do not think it is too late yet to do it. There will be further revenues from the export tax before it is converted into stumpage or whatever other arrangements are made, but I do not really see much chance of the federal Government doing that. That and what it would have done to have helped the forest industry would have been extremely significant not only in British Columbia but in Canada. As I said a moment ago, we get more export dollars from this resource than from any other single resource. It would have also helped to diversify the economy, which the Minister says is one of the goals of the federal Government.
All kinds of secondary industries can develop if we have a strong forestry policy. As Jack Munro pointed out himself:
There could be all kinds of jobs in the forest industry, not just silviculture and
reforestation, but secondary industries, manufacturing, products that haven't
even been thought of yet.
The Government talks a great deal about diversifying, but in fact it has done nothing that I can see nor frankly does it even claim to have done anything to help both the growth of the basic resource in British Columbia and the diversification of that resource.
I had hoped to have a few minutes to elaborate on other topics. Perhaps I could just mention the way in which the federal Government is handling the Canada Employment Centres. It is cutting back on staffing of those centres at the
Supply
very time when unemployment itself is growing. I will find a later occasion to discuss that in more detail.


Mr. Crofton:: Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). She began her remarks by saying that the federal Government had failed to address the needs of the forest industry in British Columbia. She did not bother to include in her opening remarks that her Party aided and abetted the former administration which raped the Treasury of Canada, picked the pockets of all Canadians and left the new Government with an extremely serious financial mess with which to deal. In my mind, it is very regrettable that members of the NDP simply cannot bring themselves to function in the real world.
The Hon. Member observed that we had not established a full forestry ministry. I share her regret that indeed we have not achieved that goal, but we have created the Department of the Minister of State for Forestry, a quantum leap ahead from what we had in the past.
The Government worked very hard at negotiating with the Province of British Columbia a $300 million ERDA agreement on forestry. I do not recall members of her Party saying anything complimentary about that. Again, it was a quantum step ahead in addressing the serious needs of the forest industry in B.C.
In particular, I would like to comment on the 15 per cent export tax which is returning some $600 million a year to Canada, $600 million a year that would not be coming to Canada if members of the NDP had had their way in the debate. They fought the agreement tooth and nail and spoke against it. It would seem that they would have preferred to see the $600 million paid into the treasury of the United States. Is the Hon. Member now saying that it was a good idea? She certainly had a lot to say about how that money should be spent, money that we would not have had, had her Party had its way.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, is the Hon. Member saying that the money should be spent in any way British Columbia wants to spend it? That is the real question. It is a federal export tax and the Hon. Member apparently thinks that a federal export tax on softwood lumber can or should be used in any way possible except for silviculture and reforestation. He is certainly contradicting the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) who said on three separate occasions that it was the full expectation that a large part of the moneys would be spent on silviculture and reforestation. I suppose the Hon. Member is trying to make the argument that this does not really matter, the Tories do not really care how the money is spent, let Premier Vander Zalm do what he wants with it. That seems to me to be what the Hon. Member is saying.


Mr. St. Germain:: Madam Speaker, it really surprises me that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam

March 23, 1987
Supply
(Ms. Jewett) wants virtually to usurp the powers and authorities vested in the provinces of Canada. There is no way that anyone would not advocate protecting our forests and maintaining a high level of silviculture and reforestation in British Columbia. However, the Hon. Member has tried to make Canadians believe that they are the protectors of the forest industry. In the COFI report on Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, there is a situation to which I would like the Hon. Member to respond if she can.
On January 29, 1987, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spoke on joint line rates, something which would be beneficial to all forest companies and would allow them to find much more competitive rates for shipping lumber anywhere in North America. At that time, the Hon. Member quoted the exact words of Mr. R. S. Allison, CP Rail's President, to the 30th Annual Traffic Transportation Conference, virtually speaking against the mandated joint line rates which would reduce the transportation costs to the forest industry considerably. I hope I have made my question quite plain. I would like the Hon. Member to let us know if she is on the side of the forest industry or if she is on the side of giant corporations like CP Rail. I think it is important that Canadians understand where the NDP stand on issues as important as this one is to the forest industry in British Columbia.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Tories are very funny. When they find that we are quoting a union leader, they engage in union bashing and NDP bashing and say that the NDP is being dictated to by the unions. Then when a union leader takes a position different from that of the NDP, as was the case on what we regard as being the sell-out on softwood lumber, then they blast away at us because we in the federal House of Commons are taking a position different from that of union leaders. That defeats their whole argument that we are always in lock-step with the unions. Then when an Hon. Member says that he thought something said in a speech by the President of the CP was worth repeating in the House, we get lambasted because we are supposed to be anti-corporation.
I wish the Tories would make up their minds on this and would not engage in such stereotyping.


Gerry St. Germain: Answer the question, Pauline.


Pauline Jewett: You can ask the Hon. Member later today, Gerry. He will be speaking. You ask him why he quoted the President of CP instead of giving us all this garbage because we do not fit into your stereotypes.
Returning to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, perhaps he would rise and explain why it is that Tories allow all kinds of guidelines under the national health Act for the expenditure of federal funds. Why did they not say that that is dictating to the provinces? I do not think they ever said that.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: He didn't.


Pauline Jewett: I know, but he prefaced his remark on that. Turning to the ERDA agreement, in response to the Hon.
Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton), I did mention that agreement and said that it was a good one. It is just that there is hardly any money in it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I was wondering if we could hear the New Democratic Party's policy on taxation of provincial resources when those provincial resources are exported. The Hon. Member will know that this particular tax with respect to softwood lumber is collected by the federal Government and, as trustee for the provinces, the federal Government distributes that money back to the provinces from whence the tax came. Is it the policy of the New Democratic Party that the federal Government has the right to levy export taxes on raw resources and to keep that revenue for its own purposes?


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my position is exactly that of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She is away right now, but I know that she is absolutely furious and believes that Premier Vander Zalm has acted in bad faith in his handling of these revenues.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have three very short and quick questions for the Hon. Member. Did she support the National Energy Program and does she believe it was beneficial to western Canada? Does she believe that Imperial Oil should have been nationalized? Did she agree with the theft involved in the back-in provision of the NEP? Just answer those questions without rhetoric.


Pauline Jewett: You know I am incapable of rhetoric.
On the first question, we voted against the NEP.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is on the record, Jack.


Pauline Jewett: It is on the record.


Jack Wendele Shields: Listen to that!


Pauline Jewett: He asked me to answer the question and I answered his first question.


Jack Wendele Shields: Look at the debates.


Pauline Jewett: I will wait until he checks the facts before I answer the rest of his questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Michel Côté: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in response to the motion of my friend from Yorkton-Melville. The motion condemns the Government for its lack of what he calls a long-term economic development strategy for western Canada. Perhaps the Hon. Member should consult his constituents as to whether they condemn a Government which dismantled the much hated National
March 23, 1987

Energy Program of the previous Government, removed the PGRT, and abolished the universally unpopular Foreign Investment Review Act. The Government has launched as well trade negotiations with the U.S. which stand to benefit western Canada. This Government does indeed have in place a longterm economic development strategy for western Canada. That strategy is based on the principle that the economic health of western Canada, as does the rest of the country, depends on private sector led initiatives.
For this Government regional economic development stands at the centre of economic policy. We regard it as part of the process of building a greater, more cohesive pan-Canadian community. It is no less an exercise in nation-building in this century than was the construction of the railways in the last century. We will all remember that only a week ago in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) underscored the role that regional development plays in the economic thinking of this Government. He warned against the danger of building two Canadas, one which is rich and promising and one which is underdeveloped and underemployed. He went on to speak about the need for building one Canada where fairness and equality of opportunity for all would prevail.
The basic principles of that policy were enunciated in the Throne Speech of October, 1986. That speech called for new approaches which would build on the human and natural resources strength of the regions and which would show greater sensitivity to local conditions and opportunities. In a very few words those are the corner-stones of our new directions in regional development policy.
I am pleased to note that the New Democratic Party, in its March, 1987, convention in Montreal seems to have endorsed this approach. It approved a shifting of priority for regional development away from a complete reliance on investment from outside the regions to a more self-reliant approach emphasizing the application of human and physical capital already in less developed regions. I appreciate the NDP support for our policy.
The type of assistance the federal Government provides to assist these aims can take many forms. That is why we provided, for example, $263 million of federal support to Expo 86, for example. That is why as well the Government is providing one-third support to the $50 million Yellowhead Highway upgrading program. Let us talk now about specifics and the instruments we have available to deliver these regional programs.
First, the Government has in place a very effective instrument for economic development in the western provinces in our ERDA agreements which we negotiate with the provincial Governments. The ERDAs allow for agreed approaches to priority areas pertaining to the provinces. Each ERDA outlines a broad development strategy and priorities for action. The agreement forms the framework for the development of specific subsidiary agreements tailored to the needs of each region. Since September, 1984, my Department has committed $308 million under 16 subsidiary agreements with the western
Supply
provinces, and a further $93 million under agreements that were part of the previous agreement system.

In Manitoba for example, Madam Speaker, subsidiary agreements have been concluded with respect to the development of an urban bus transit system, the launching of a tourism initiative, an another project for downtown Winnipeg, as my colleague would know. Similar agreements with Saskatchewan will pave the way for new technological industries and their rapid expansion. By the same token, Madam Speaker, this will promote the tourism industry in the province and boost economic development in northern Saskatchewan.
In addition, last year in Alberta for instance, we signed a few agreements concerning science and technology, native people, economic development, and transport. The Department shares the cost of a number of tourism, farm technology, and northern development subsidiary agreements. In British Columbia, several such agreements are aimed at promoting tourism, industry and small business. Regional and economic development agreements are the key to future growth. But, Madam Speaker, they are not the only program designed to improve western diversification and economic expansion. The main objective of this program is to promote industrial and regional development through private sector projects designed for just such expansion. The industries and new technologies which stand a very good chance of becoming profitable are also included in these projects so that we may be able to guarantee the sustained development of a region while at the same time remaining competitive on international markets.

The program responds specifically to the needs of the small and medium-sized businesses and compliments other federal programs. Since September, 1984, assistance has been authorized of close to $100 million for some 470 projects in western Canada. More than 63 per cent of this assistance as well was authorized for innovation, expansion and modernization projects. Then there is the Western Transportation Industrial Development Program. This program was specifically tailored to the four western provinces to provide assistance for firms in the manufacturing, processing and other related industries so that they might take advantage of opportunities presented by changes in freight rate legislation.
It was under our Government that we expanded the benefit of this program to assist Alberta. Since September, 1984, as well, 161 authorizations have been made under this program representing $29 million in assistance.
Under the Small Businesses Loans Act, since the beginning of 1984, nearly 24,000 business enterprises have been assisted in the western provinces to obtain term loans to a total of about $670 million. These small businesses have access to term loans at better rates for acquisition and modernization of equipment and buildings. They are engaged in manufacturing, wholesale trades, retail, services, construction, transportation

March 23, 1987
Adjournment Debate
and communication. Also, since 1984 the Federal Business Development Bank has provided term loans to western Canada, as it did to eastern Canada, in response to the question of my colleague, to promote and assist in the establishment and development of fitness enterprises.
The list goes on. The very popular special Agricultural and Rural Development Act program has provided $54 million in assistance for western Canada since September, 1984, primarily to native and native-related initiatives. The Native Economic Development Program has provided another $47 million to native peoples' business initiatives. The Government is fully committed to helping native people in Canada achieve economic self-reliance and will make this program as effective as possible to help realize this objective.
Recently announced improvements to the native program include widening program criteria to enable primary resource businesses to qualify for assistance, broadening program support for community economic development activity, improving program accessibility and delivery, creating new flexibility for individual applicants, and extending the deadlines for applications by one year to March 31, 1989. These are not just statistics, Madam Speaker. These funds are being provided to support dynamic, exciting initiatives.
I have mentioned these federal initiatives because I want to underscore the broad policy and program directions that the Government has set in terms of encouraging the kind of local entrepreneurship that is needed to promote regional selfreliance. The Government will continue to use the traditional tools of development that have worked. There is clearly a need to continue to strengthen the resource base and to ensure as well that the necessary infrastructure for development is in place. This is reflected in the approach the Government has taken with initiatives under the economic and regional development agreements with the provinces.
The Government is also sensitive to the changes which have taken place in the West. For this reason I have agreed to review our programs and ensure that they are regionally sensitive. In the West this will mean focusing on diversifying the resource base that exists. A perfect example would be the recent signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Province of British Columbia on the Pacific Centre for Trade, Commerce and Travel. This MOU will allow the two Governments to co-ordinate initiatives to enhance British Columbia's future economic development.
These include encouraging the growth of international banking and other financial services in Vancouver, coordinating transportation improvements, enhancing trade-related services and opportunities in those professional and technical services where British Columbians have developed significant expertise. The MOU will also improve the coordination of marketing and promotion of British Columbia as a tourist destination. This is only a sample of long-term economic planning which the Government believes in.
Partnership in development is essential if we are to succeed in strengthening the ability of all our regions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the emerging world economy. Aggressive international competition in resource and traditional manufacturing industries represents one such challenge. Rapid growth in services and knowledge-intensive industries represent new opportunities. The development efforts required to enhance the productivity of our traditional wealth-generating industries and to foster these skills and knowledge necessary to capture the new opportunities can only be undertaken in close co-operation with the provinces. Their jurisdictional responsibilities for resource management and many facets of social policy mean that the provinces have a key role to play in the development effort.
I have launched a joint review with my provincial counterparts to determine what direction our future collaborative approach to regional development should take where joint programs exist. Provincial Ministers and I will be looking for realistic and practical ways to engage the Canadian people of all regions in their economic development. I am optimistic about our prospects for arriving at a consensus about what needs to be done and how to develop initiatives that are sensitive to the unique circumstances of each region.
The Government's broad directions have been set. Other initiatives announced in last fall's Throne Speech, specifically the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and western diversification, will also reflect these broad directions. As was stated in the Speech from the Throne, the Government is convinced many positive proposals for new policy initiatives will come from those who live and work in the regions concerned.
Those words sum up my message today, Madam Speaker. This is not a Government which believes in made-in-Ottawa solutions. Ultimately the solutions have to be found in the regions and in the spirit of self-reliance and initiative of the Canadian people.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Environmental affairs-(a) Acid rain, (b) Canadian position; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada	Post	Corporation-(a)	Linguistic
policy-Government position, (b) Manner in which policy is applied; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Railways-(a) Grain freight rates, (b) Request for retention of freeze on freight rates.
March 23, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom:
That this House condemns the government for its lack of a long term economic development strategy for Western Canada that would, among other things,
(1)	address the severe hardships being faced by the agricultural sector, especially as it relates to depressed grain prices, which have devasted the farm community;
(2)	deal effectively with the problems of the forest industry and in particular, the need to conserve and manage the forest resource for future generations;
(3)	come to terms with the need for realistic and pragmatic policies to revive the energy sector, whose decline has created such hardships for average Albertans;
(4)	commit the government to pursuing policies that would assist in the economic diversification of the economy and the growth of secondary manufacturing;
and that the lack of such commitments by the government to Western Canada will result in a continuation of the unacceptably high levels of unemployment and economic hardship suffered by the people of Western Canada.
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) a question about the speech he made this afternoon in the House, and more specifically about the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Minister praised his Government for its decision to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act. Since the spring of 1985, to be eligible under the Act which before . .. the Government guaranteed 100 per cent of the loan, while today, the Government only guarantees 85 per cent and the banks have to guarantee the difference, in other words, 15 per cent. Of course, there is the 1 per cent to be paid initially, 1 per cent of the total amount of the loan, which is a kind of loan insurance in the event the person or business that applied for the loan is unable to meet payments.
I have no quarrel with the 1 per cent which seems entirely reasonable as a guarantee. However, during the debate on the Bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, I strongly objected to the fact that once the Act was amended, it could not be effective immediately. In fact, we have had feedback from a number of chartered banks who take part in this program and who are not longer interested in giving these loans because they have problems applying the Act as such and the amendment makes it harder because of the 15 per cent, and so some banks have decided not to recommend this kind of loan to their clients. Could the Minister therefore inform the House today what the situation is and whether these reports are true? Does he intend to propose an amendment to make the legislation effective, so that the banks can implement a program that, as we all know, has met with encouraging success in the past?
Supply


Michel Côté: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest in the matter. It so happens that the various policies of the Federal Development Bank are currently under review, as he knows.
There has been a series of rather exhaustive consultations in that area for a number of months now.
It stands to reason that since it is anxiously trying to equalize those regional disparities, the Government must use the available tools to try and maximize the economic spin-offs and benefits of the policies it is putting in place.
To this date, the Federal Development Bank has been intensively involved in making sure that available programs are provided.
We are sure the FDB's new direction-and I can reassure the Hon. Member on that point-as well as the many changes that will take place not only with respect to regional development initiatives but in co-ordination with them, and the nature of the FDB's new policies will be such as to increase such use of the FDB by small businesses, thereby promoting and helping with regional development.


Alfonso Gagliano: A supplementary, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since several members have risen, I will then have to recognize other members.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I know that he is a very forthright and frank minister so I will ask him about the Western Diversification Office. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was not too forthcoming with the House on this question.
I have a list of employees of the Western Diversification Office. It is not my list or an NDP list, it came in a brown envelope that has been circulated around the bureaucracy. I have phone numbers, addresses and positions. As far as I know, all or most of them were employees of the Minister, at least until the end of last week. Will the Minister tell me what his employees are doing?
For example, I know that Mr. Anthony Reynolds is a very important person in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in Manitoba. I know that John Blackwood, at least until the end of last week, is a very important person in DRIE in Manitoba. If you call some of these numbers, the response is: "Department of Regional Industrial Expansion". Will the Minister level with the House and tell us about the Western Diversification Office that is in the National Research Council building in Winnipeg on Ellice Avenue? Will he tell us the purpose of that office and describe its objectives? Does it have a budget? Will he tell us what is happening in his own Department?

March 23, 1987
Supply


Michel Côté: Madam Speaker, there is nothing going on. As a matter of fact, the Member knows that we have an office in Winnipeg. Officials there are trying to do their best. Some of them work on different initiatives. I have more than 2,500 people in different offices all over Canada. I do not know what each of them is doing on a daily basis.
In order to develop a western diversification policy, or make changes, some people may, at certain times, devote time to prepare some documentation for the Department on that aspect. I would not say that there is a Western Diversification Office, per se.


Mrs. Collins:: Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that there cannot be made-in-Ottawa solutions to meet the needs of the western economy. I fully agree with that.
One very interesting example is the Memorandum of Understanding which the Minister signed with his provincial counterpart, the Honourable Grace McCarthy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear what the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) is saying. I am sure the Minister is having the same problem. I imagine he would like to hear what the member is saying, if he is expected to answer. The Member for Capilano has the floor, hoping that her colleagues will give her the courtesy of listening.


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleagues will want to hear this. The Memorandum of Understanding designates British Columbia as a Pacific Centre for Trade, Commerce and Travel. I hope to have an opportunity to speak about this at greater length today, if time permits. It will provide the private sector with that opportunity to co-operate with the federal and provincial Governments.
There is great enthusiasm. Some ideas that are already being explored include the devolution of the Vancouver Airport, the development of the international banking centre, and the emphasis in the tourism area.
My question concerns tourism. In 1986, $2.9 billion came into British Columbia through the tourism industry, which is the second largest industry in the province. The Cruise ship terminal at Vancouver Place, to which the federal Government provided $26 million, accommodated 350,000 visitors last year. There is much potential there as well.
A number of us who have studied the current tourism subagreement between the federal and provincial Governments and the potential for growth in the tourism industry in British Columbia see the need for perhaps a greater emphasis on some areas of the province which have not yet been designated as major destination points. With some assistance they could become those major destination points. Perhaps the emphasis should be more on helping to develop the infrastructure and letting the private sector bring in the capital, whether it is offshore or within Canada, to build the facilities. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), is
interested in the Sydney breakwater and other colleagues are interested in other infrastructure capabilities.
Is the Minister prepared to discuss this with his provincial colleagues so that we can develop the tourism potential in British Columbia to the greatest possible extent? It is indeed western diversification.


Michel Côté: Madam Speaker, it would seem important to me to emphasize first of all that 1986 has been a somewhat exceptional year for the tourist industry in Canada. This is due to a large extent to Expo '86 in beautiful British Columbia, and I know that my honourable friend has been particularly involved in the various activities which took place in that part of the country.
Madam Speaker, the House is aware of the great impact the tourist industry has on our economy. The tourist industry generates a little over $20 billion and is responsible for the creation of over 675,000 jobs. It is clear, therefore, when considering the possibility of setting up or extending tourism agreements with some provinces, to consider certain facts. Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to discuss with my provincial counterparts new initiatives and opportunities which could be taken both by the federal and provincial Governments, to enhance the tourist industry in some areas of this country where it generates such vital economic renewal.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, the motion before us today asks the House to condemn the Government for its lack of a long-term economic development strategy for western Canada that would, among other things, address the problems of agriculture, forestry, energy and economic diversification in the West. The motion goes on to state that the lack of such commitments by the Government will result in unacceptably high levels of unemployment. It is in that respect that I am participating in this debate as the employment critic for the Official Opposition. I ask the House to look more closely at the unemployment figures for western Canada and, in particular, the figures for Alberta and British Columbia.
In January, 1987, the last date for which I have the figure for Alberta, although I guess there is one out for February, the unemployment rate was 10.8 per cent. That is the highest monthly figure for unemployment in Alberta since January, 1985. I remind the House that we are a full three years out of the recession of 1982 and 1983. Coming out of that recession the Province of Alberta reached a low rate of unemployment in February of 1986 of 8.4 per cent. However, since that time the unemployment rate has continually increased until it is now at
10.8	per cent, and there is no sign of it declining.
We have heard some harsh remarks from members opposite with respect to the record of Liberal Governments, the National Energy Program and so on. Let us look at the
March 23, 1987

unemployment rates for Alberta under Liberal Governments and, in part, under the National Energy Program. In the period 1975 to 1980, the rate of unemployment was 4.15 per cent, with a low rate of 3.7 per cent in 1980. Even in 1981, the rate was 3.8 per cent. I remind Hon. Members that the National Energy Program was brought in in 1980. In 1982, the unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent. Of course in 1983, with the recession, the rate increased to 10.8 per cent. But it increased in all provinces at that time. Not only did it increase in all provinces, it increased throughout the western world.
I am amused when members of the Government compare the national rate of unemployment, which is now 9.6 per cent, with the highest rate during the recession, which was a little over 11 per cent, instead of comparing it with the average rate during the 1960s and the 1970s. Under Liberal Governments from 1965 to 1980 the average rate of unemployment in all of Canada was 5.6 per cent. In 1981, the year before the recession, the rate was 7.5 per cent. It then leapt up in 1982 and 1983. However, we are now three years out of the recession and the rate is still 10.8 per cent in Alberta. In January the unemployment rate in British Columbia was 13.6 per cent. In February it was 13.3 per cent. Again, the rate declined to 12 per cent in mid-1986 coming out of the recession as Expo was being constructed in Vancouver. Even that was not a good rate considering that at that time we were supposed to be out of the recession.
Where are the jobs that the Government promised to create? They are principally in the Province of Ontario, more particularly in the southern part of Ontario. I now read from a report in The Globe and Mail for February 28 which states:
Despite the federal Government's assurances that economic renewal is working for all Canadians, more than 95 per cent of the additional jobs created last year were located in one province-Ontario.
Between January, 1986, and January of this year, the total number of jobs in the country rose by 137,000, according to unadjusted figures. But only 5,000 of those jobs were created outside Ontario.
This points to very grave problems in terms of regional disparity and grave problems in western Canada. It also points to the fact that not much effort has been made on the part of the Government to do anything about it.
In case Hon. Members might think that what I am saying is simply opposition rhetoric or negativity, let me quote what Albertans have been saying. The Premier of Alberta, which has a Conservative Government, has been hustling with the federal Government here in Ottawa, which is also a Conservative Government, for months now to do something about the depressed resource, agricultural and energy prices in the province and to help the industry. An article in The Toronto Star in this vein states:
The premier said he warned Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski during recent trade talks that time is running out for the financially-strapped industry, which has been hard hit by low world oil prices.
I now refer to an article in the Calgary Herald of February 27 under the headline "Albertans worried about jobs" which states:
Supply
Unemployment and the poor state of the economy are the major concerns of
Albertans still in shock after a year of low oil prices and a continuing
agriculture slump, according to an Angus Reid poll commissioned by the
Herald.
I have many other quotations from people in Alberta, people who are not Liberals and who are non-political but who are critical of the attitude taken by the Government as a result of the situation in that province. It is resulting in serious matters for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and for welfare spending in Alberta. An article from The Edmonton Journal of February 27 states that there has been a 22 per cent increase in welfare cases which has forced the Alberta Cabinet to approve $35 million in social allowance payments for the beleaguered social services department.
The situation is even worse in British Columbia where there is over 13 per cent unemployment. While this is the situation in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and also in eastern Canada, the only place where we really have full employment, or something approaching it, is in the Golden Horseshoe around Toronto and southern Ontario. What is the attitude of the Government while this is happening?
Let us look at what it has been doing with its budgets with respect to job creation and job training. In 1984-85, the budget for job creation and training was $2.2 billion. It has been steadily reduced under the Conservative Government each year since it took office to the extent that this year it is $1.7 billion. On the one hand we have concern expressed in speeches and in rhetoric by the Government that it is taking these matters seriously, while on the other hand it is reducing the moneys for training and retraining. Training is required for the diversification of the economy in the West. If someone has been in one type of work for years and years and has to go into a more diversified economy then one needs retraining. The Government is seriously cutting back the moneys available for such training. As I just pointed out, it is cutting back from $2.2 billion which it allotted in 1984-85 to $1.7 billion in 198788.
We just heard the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) put before the House a number of projects that the Government is funding in western Canada. Well and good, but not enough. When are we going to return to those low rates of unemployment we experienced in the period to which I referred, from 1965 to 1980, an average of 5.6 per cent? In the envelope of the Government for spending in the area of economic and regional development, it has reduced the Budget by $3.3 billion or 25 per cent in the period from 1984 to 1987. That is a serious cut in moneys available to create infrastructure and to help develop the economies in those parts of the country where it is essential that something be done.
a (1700)
I am ready to admit as a Liberal that the acceptance of the Liberal Party in western Canada was not as good as we would have liked in recent years. There were years when it was better.

March 23, 1987
Supply


David Kilgour: That is a concession.


Mr. Ailmand:: Well, it is a concession. I admit it. In this respect, I give credit to the Conservative Party which did not have any seats in Quebec save one before the last election. It tried hard to develop new policies and it won a certain amount of support in Quebec. However, the Liberal Party in western Canada, I can recall in the 1950s, 1960s and even in the 1970s, did have a good base of support. I want to tell westerners that we are now searching for new approaches and new policies which will help and better serve western Canada. We were pleased to have at our national policy convention in November here in Ottawa large delegations from the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, because we do not in our small caucus have an opportunity to talk with westerners except for those in the Senate, and we adopted policies which I think will serve western Canada well.


David Kilgour: What about an elected Senate?


William Warren Allmand: There were two resolutions for an elected Senate with equal representation from each province, one put forward by the Liberal Association of New Brunswick and another by the Liberal Party in Manitoba. Both those resolutions carried by wide margins in the Liberal Party. Let me say that in the last Parliament, before the election of 1984, we had a special joint committee of the House and the Senate to discuss and study Senate reform. I appeared before that committee and recommended an elected Senate with equal representation in all provinces. I did that as a representative from Quebec. I have come to realize, having been here for 22 years, that we will never have federal institutions which do justice to the regions of Canada which are less populated unless we have a Senate which is elected and which counterbalances the "rep by pop" principle in the House of Commons.
I think westerners realize that, unfortunately, they will continue to be short-changed as long as we have a federal legislative system where the overwhelming bulk of votes in this House are in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. If one Party gets together and gets those votes in Ontario and Quebec, it controls the country. The only way to counterbalance that sort of situation is to have an elected Senate as there is in the United States with an equal number of seats from each province so that we then counterbalance the strong populations in Ontario and Quebec with an upper house which is effective and can really represent the people in those provinces. I am committed to that kind of policy. We will then have policies coming out of the central Government which will more truly reflect and help all the regions of this country.
There were just two of the resolutions which were carried by the Liberal Party which were directed to the needs of the West. There were others dealing with full employment policies and with policies related to a western industrial strategy. A resolution was introduced by the Saskatchewan Liberal Association to the effect that we establish a western industrial strategy to develop secondary industries, particularly those related to the resource and agricultural industries, and to
develop and support infrastructures to that end. There is more detail to it, but resolutions along those lines were also passed in the areas of energy, agriculture and other economic matters of interest to the West.
This motion states that the Government should be condemned for its lack of policy for the West, and I fully support that condemnation. The policy of the Government has been one of laissez-faire, if we let the private sector do it, the job will get done. The job is not getting done. The rate of unemployment is going up in Alberta and in British Columbia. It is still quite low in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but both provinces have had a decline in their labour market which accounts for their continuing low rate. There has been a migration over the years from those two provinces but not to the same extent from Alberta and British Columbia. A policy of laissez-faire, let the private sector do it, will not work in Canada. It has never worked in Canada. What we require is a sound partnership with the private sector between Governments at all levels. I do not go to the extent of the New Democratic Party which would like to see a dominant role played by the Government. We have seen in this country under Liberal Governments over the years sound partnerships between the federal Government and provincial Governments with the private sector. Our country is so vast, with sparse population in many places and many regional problems, but when that partnership came together we had, as I pointed out, low rates of unemployment, high rates of growth and economic justice for Canadians in all parts of the country.
I support this motion. I believe that more can be done. 1 believe that instead of budgets being cut in the Department of Employment and Immigration, there should be an increase at this time, especially in those provinces where there are increasing rates of unemployment. Instead of cuts in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion there should be increases. Some of the things mentioned by the Minister are good things, but that is not enough. More has to be done. We need more political will, more commitment from the Government, if those problems are going to be solved in the West as well as in the East.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the member doth protest too much, I think. He is now for an elected Senate. When was he converted to an elected Senate? When were the 70-odd Liberal-and I underline the word "odd"-Senators converted to an elected Senate? How are we ever going to get a Bill through that other place to bring in an elected Senate? The Hon. Member and I know that those people who are appointed to life, answerable to no one, accountable to no one, would block such a measure. Until he can rise in this House and tell us that the Liberal Senators have had a change of heart, I submit his position, although sincere, is not one which is reflected by his Party.
In fact, the elected members of the caucus cannot even elect a chairman of their caucus. It is those people in the Upper house who elect the chairman of their caucus. The vote was 70 votes for the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. March 23, 1987

Prud'homme) against 38 elected member votes from the House of Commons. What kind of Party is that? Has there been a repentance or is it just the Hon. Member who is with us today, and I point out he is the only one in the House today, who is converted to some of these causes?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, 1 will deal with the last point first. I do not know how the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) knows the results of the vote for the chairman of our caucus when I did not even know it myself. I guess he read it in some newspaper. It is news to me that the chairman of our caucus was elected by that margin. The results were never revealed to us.
The Hon. Member asked when I became converted to an elected Senate. I have been in favour of an elected Senate since my days in law school. He asks me when our Party became committed. I want to tell him that our Leader and several other leading members of our front bench have been speaking across the country in favour of an elected Senate.
[DOT] (mo)
I would agree with him that we did not always have that position. We did not have that position in the last Parliament. However, I wonder when the entire Conservative Party became committed to an elected Senate. I have the impression that many of us sitting in the House here in Ottawa have seen the light in recent years. We have seen institutions at the federal level not really working for the remote regions of the country. Many of us have finally come to the realization that if we want a federal system which works for all parts of the country, we need institutions that better serve all those regions. If we just have a lower House controlled by Ontario and Quebec, we will never have institutions which are credible in the west or in the Atlantic provinces.
That is the position of our Party and our caucus. What certain Members of the Senate might or might not do, I do not know. However, if there is a common will in the House among members of his Party, my Party, and the NDP in this regard, let us get it done. I can tell him that I will support it. I am on record. Many other people will support it. It is fundamental for justice in the west and justice in the east. No matter what might be said in Ontario and Quebec-and it means a loss of power by them in a certain sense-if we are to have a united country, this must be done.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). Speaking strictly on behalf of myself, I think we must look at a change in the system where we have representation by population on one side and representation by regions on the other side, so that there is a balance and small provinces are not discriminated against.


Mr. Beatty:: Since when is the NDP in favour of the Senate?
Supply


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I just finished saying that I was speaking on behalf of myself and no one else. We must move in that kind of direction.
We must also move in the direction where the provinces have some input over central institutions such as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is appointed by the federal Government, and it has to adjudicate or referee between the provinces and the federal Government. Once again I think we need some kind of input from the regions of the country. I would certainly support going in that direction. I will not be a Senator, anyway, so it does not matter much. I will leave that for my friend from Assiniboia.
I have a question for the Hon. Member. What changes are there in Liberal policy which will be attractive to western Canada? We have seen the Liberals almost become an extinct species in western Canada. Of course the Conservative Party is now fitting into that category as it used to be when John Diefenbaker was a lone Member from the Prairies. He said that they were so few and far between that they could hold caucus meetings in a telephone booth. I notice Mr. Getty is talking about separating the Alberta Conservative Party away from the federal Party because the federal Party is so unpopular.
I also noticed today that despite the efforts of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), the PCs are running third in the City of Edmonton. That is an incredible fall in two months. It is probably unprecedented in North American history to have a Party fall so far and so fast. In any event, it is now the third Party.
I ask the Hon. Member what changes there are in Liberal policy, since the two of us will be fighting for government in the next election campaign, which will make that Party more attractive to western Canada? I do not think the Liberals have changed at all.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I started to refer to the resolutions passed at our convention, but I did not want to take up the time of the House by reading them in detail into the record. I would like to do that some day. I think it would be very interesting, if I had the opportunity to read them into the record. However, in that I only have a few minutes at this point and that I only had 20 minutes earlier, I did not do so. I would be glad to do it on another occasion.
There are very detailed resolutions on western industrial strategies and a full employment policy, which is much better than the one drafted at the NDP convention because I drafted it myself. There is also a resolution regarding the oil and gas sector.
I might say that these policies have come out of the western provinces. Two very key ones which are not new policies-and I think my hon. friend would agree with me-are policies which existed in the area of regional economic expansion in the past. I referred to the cuts to the budget of that Department. If it were restored, something could be done.

March 23, 1987
Supply
I just answered questions about our change in policy in respect of the Senate and so on. There is a lot for western voters to consider. They seem to be giving us a new and better look since the election of 1984.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it has been so long since I have had an opportunity to question my hon. friend that I could not miss it. In view of his glowing comments with regard to the Liberal policy meeting in November, has the Hon. Member forgotten his letter to the editor, published in The Gazette on December 17, 1986, in which he referred to the same resolutions in the following way:
Some were passed unanimously and others by a narrow margin. Some were detailed and others general, some were clear and others vague, some were complimentary while others contradictory, and finally, some issues were not dealt with at all. More significantly, many of these resolutions were carried without information on their financial implications.
Has he forgotten that letter to the editor which he wrote?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, no, I have not. I wish the Hon. Member would read the whole letter. I would like to read it into the record. He is quite correct, because the letter was written in response to an editorial and some comment that all the nearly 200 resolutions should be implemented holus-bolus, without any further work being done on them. I wrote that letter, and what he quoted was quite correct, but there was much more which he did not quote. 1 would have no hesitancy if the Hon. Minister were to read the entire letter into the record, because I still support what it says.
In effect, it says that more work must be done to fine tune and to bring the resolutions to fruition. On the ones about which I was asked, since the convention we have had many opportunities to talk about an elected Senate. Our Leader and other members have spoken about it. On that one there does not seem to be any difference or any falling back.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is funny that the Hon. Member should ask me to read more. I would be delighted to do so, particularly the following two paragraphs:
Secondly, while nothing explicit is written down, it has been the tradition that where Liberals, through resolutions, have spoken strongly and clearly in convention, then those resolutions should be the official policy of the party.
However, if conditions or the context should change, then the leader has the right to suspend, delay, or even reject such resolutions. But if he does so, he has the obligation to justify his decision to the party and its members at the first available opportunity. If he fails to do so, then his support by the party could be in jeopardy.
In view of the fact that my hon. friend's Leader has specifically repudiated the position taken by the Liberal Party in convention with regard to the ending of the testing of Cruise missiles in Canada, is it his view that that was adequately justified by his Leader or, in his words, is his support by the Party in jeopardy?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, of course that particular issue is not relevant to the debate. However, let me tell him that he has distorted the Leader's position. As he knows, while
I differed from my Leader on that particular day, the difference between us was not that much. My Leader was willing to vote for a resolution to end Cruise missile testing within the NATO context. I did not vote against that amendment, but I voted for the NDP resolution because I thought it was right.
However, I do not think that the difference between my Leader and I on that issue is that deep, and I think he will see on that issue, as on many other issues, that we will come united into the election. I hope the Hon. Minister will give attention to that, because he is going to be in a lot of trouble.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a member whose provincial ridings are now fully represented by provincial Progressive Conservative members.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the biggest assistance I have.


Geoff Wilson: It is for sure that he will need some. It is interesting to note that we come from a perspective in western Canada where for years and years we went without any federal representation. All we had in the federal Cabinet were a couple of broken-down Senators who were wandering around the countryside shrugging off responsibility for decisions of the previous Government, occasionally accepting whatever gratitude there was for some lucky international incident that might have resulted in something good for the west. But by and large, there was no representation whatever. I am happy to note now that western Canada is fully represented in a national Cabinet by some 58 Members of Parliament, 10 Ministers, among them the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and a number of others. I am heartened by that because it is fairly evident that a considerable response is being made to western Canada, the likes of which has not been seen in our history.


Cyril Keeper: We agree with that.


Geoff Wilson: In dealing with this motion, it is important to do so from the perspective that we in western Canada will never be the manufacturing, the industrial centre of Canada, nor for that matter the population centre. We should not approach it from that point of view because there will not be the fundamental changes suddenly making us a country of 100 million people. What is important are the steps that have been taken in western Canada by the Government to strengthen and to diversify what we have.
I would like to speak to this motion from the perspective of the agricultural sector as a representative of a prairie riding which is largely dependent upon the growing of wheat. Contrary to what is stated in the motion, the Government has acted and continues to act in support of the important sector of agriculture. The member who proposed this motion should be
March 23, 1987

well aware of our Government's high priority commitment to agriculture. That, of course, includes a commitment to the grain farmers in western Canada. Agriculture matters to each and every Canadian. Our grain industry means jobs, exports and the very survival of a great many rural communities in western Canada. The federal Government's many policies and programs are proof of our commitment to a strong agricultural industry in western Canada. We are addressing the hardships currently threatening many of our western grain farmers.
I would like to repeat what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said in a debate here last week, "That this Government will stack its record in agriculture, including programs that benefit western farmers, against the record of any previous Government". I challenge anyone to take an objective look at the record and to make the comparison. The initiatives and the dollars tell the story.
To begin with, it would be worthwhile for all Members of this Elouse to examine the roots of the problems facing farmers in western Canada. The problems are not simple, nor are the solutions. First, we have to acknowledge that over the past couple of decades farmers have made great advances by applying new technologies. Our grain farmers have become more efficient and more productive. Those are positive developments, but they have implications. We should consider also that many farmers in western Canada are carrying debtloads many times what they were carrying 15 years ago. Some of that was, I think, government induced. We had the business investment tax credit, an ill-advised Liberal initiative, which encouraged many farmers to overinvest in expensive farm machinery and equipment and to go into debt for it. We had high-priced land, and 1 hate to say that in the Province of Saskatchewan the stimulus and impetus for some of that was the Land Bank Program of the New Democratic Party's provincial Government of the day, a Government which used young farmers own tax money to enter in bidding wars over the value of land, a most unfortunate circumstance.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It was lower than the markets.


Geoff Wilson: Much of the increase occurred in the 1970s when farmers borrowed heavily for equipment and farmlands to expand their operations. Those expansions left many farmers in western Canada with high-debt costs and monthly payments that are very hard to meet.
The high interest rates of the early 1980s continue to haunt many farmers who are still trying to recover. In addition, the value of farmland has fallen in western Canada, eroding equity, and making it difficult for farmers to borrow operating capital. All of these factors are influencing farm incomes. Obviously, no single program can address the wide range of problems. The international market-place is also a major influence, probably the most significant influence of all on our western grain farmers. Some traditional customers for our grain exports have become net exporters themselves. Surpluses have built up around the world. Some countries are trying to
Supply
get rid of their surpluses by offering huge export subsidies. The European Economic Community and the United States are the most notable examples. This subsidy war has driven world prices way down. Our grain farmers in western Canada are among the unfortunate victims of this trade war.
The federal Government recognizes that these international influences must be dealt with at the international level. We are doing that vigorously, forcefully and on a priority basis. I would be remiss if 1 did not comment on the efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) who has been instrumental in getting together representatives of the grain exporting countries with a view to trying to bring back some measure of sanity into the international wheat market-place.
It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for International Trade succeeded in having agriculture included for the first time as a priority item in the forthcoming Uruguay round of GATT talks. The Government knows that solutions to the international problems will not happen overnight. We also know that the problems facing farmers in western Canada are the result of many different influences. That is why we must approach the solutions, not from one but from many angles, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Our Government has delivered an historic special grains program, a program that no other Government has ever matched. It is a program that demonstrates clearly the Government's understanding of the problems facing the nation's grain farmers. The Special Canadian Grains Program is putting $1 billion in cash directly into the pockets of about
200,000	grain and oil seed farmers this year. The share of this program accruing to producers within my Province of Saskatchewan is in excess of $400 million. The net farm income in Saskatchewan this year was projected to be possibly $400 million. With one stroke of the pen our Government has managed to double the net farm income in the Province of Saskatchewan this year. I am disappointed that there are those representing western Canada who would have the temerity in the face of that to suggest that our Government has not addressed agricultural hardship.
The special grains program is specifically designed to help cushion the drop in grain prices caused by the massive export subsidies in the European Economic Community and the United States. The Government worked with farm leaders and organizations, including the prairie pools and some 30 others to put together a fair and equitable program for distributing the $1 billion among grain producers. I would like to point out that about 84 per cent of this $1 billion will be going to grain farmers in western Canada. In fact, about 140,000 cheques worth one-quarter of a billion dollars were mailed to eligible Canadian Wheat Board permit holders in January and February. We expect that about $600 million of the remaining $700 million to be paid out under the Special Canadian Grains Program will go to farmers in western Canada. It is largely because of this special program that payments made to

March 23, 1987
Supply
western grain farmers under federal programs in 1987 will far exceed any previous level at any time in this country's history.
The Special Canadian Grains Program, Madam Speaker, is not the only initiative that the Government has directed toward western agriculture. We have the Federal-Provincial Crop Insurance Program, 50 per cent of which is contributed by the federal Government and 50 per cent by the producers, with the cost of administration contributed by the participating provinces. This program has seen improved levels of coverage at no additional cost to the producer.
The Government also participates in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund making contributions of $2 for every $1 contributed by the western grain farmer. The Government has responded to representations from western grain farmers and delivered amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act in order to ensure that timely interim payments be made each spring. Under the western grain stabilization program, over $500 million was paid out in 1985, some $859 million last year and payments for the 1987 year will likely set a record. Western grain farmers can obviously expect a large interim payment again this year and very soon.
The Government also delivered two new lending programs to the Farm Credit Corporation, programs which are giving farmers more financial flexibility at a time when they really need it. Today, loans under the commodity-based loan program and the shared-risk programs total more than $300 million.
The Government amended the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act to double the level of cash advances and also to eliminate the irritant of having a landlord's signature required for a tenant to be able to secure advances. We delivered farm debt review boards which are helping farmers in western Canada to negotiate arrangements with their creditors, arrangements that will keep them on the land. So far, well over half of the arrangements that have been negotiated should result in keeping viable farms in operation.
We have also acted to reduce effectively farm input costs. Fast year, the Farm Fuel Tax Rebate Program reduced input costs for farmers by some $70 million. In this year's federal Budget, the rebate program was expanded to cushion farmers fully against the one-cent per litre tax increase on gas and diesel fuel. These rebates now total in excess of eight cents a litre or some 35 cents a gallon.
The $80 million interest rate reduction program continues to hold down interest costs for more than 5,000 farmers with Farm Credit Corporation loans. This five-year program is helping farmers who were caught by high interest rates in the early 1980s before we came into office and brought those rates down. Our economic policies have caused interest rates to drop by more than 4 percentage points so far. Every one point decline represents a saving to the farm community of between $100 million and $200 million. There is approximately $25
billion in farm debt outstanding, and it is easy to extrapolate from that just how important each 1 per cent reduction in interest rates really is.
Federal Government spending to benefit the grain farmers of western Canada and farmers in other parts of Canada as well is higher than it has ever been before. This year, the level will be much higher than last year's record level. Some of this assistance obviously comes from programs to which farmers contribute, programs on which I have touched already, but the bulk of it, particularly this year, represents federal funds. That is over and above spending on important and ongoing programs that serve the farm community such as research, technology, inspection, grading and trade development. The level of direct payments to farmers is high and will no doubt remain high until market prices recover. We know, however, that this investment in agriculture is a worth-while investment on behalf of all Canadians.
There can be absolutely no doubt about the Government's commitment to western grain farmers and indeed to farmers all across Canada. We have delivered and we will continue to deliver. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board are continuing to meet with their provincial counterparts and with farm leaders to plan new measures that will benefit western grain farmers in the future. Agriculture continues to be a key element of the Government's agenda for economic renewal. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled a progress report on the agenda along with his February Budget, spelling out the Government's commitment to having the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board continue to meet with farm organizations and the provinces on a priority basis.
The Government's objective is to find new ways to ensure that the Canadian grain industry remains a competitive force in world markets. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board met with farm leaders on March 5 to begin planning actions to assist grain farmers in the coming crop year. Obviously it is still too soon to come to any definitive conclusions about what help will be needed or how it should be delivered, but it is clear, and farm leaders have agreed, that grain farmers should not expand or shift production on the expectation of the special payment based on this year's acreage or production. Any new assistance measures will be production and market neutral.
The Minister of Agriculture will be meeting with his provincial counterparts next week on March 30 and with farm leaders again in May or June. Western grain farmers and other farmers from coast to coast recognize that the Government regards agriculture as a top priority. They appreciate the fact that we intend to include the farm community in the planning of future actions.
The Government's record speaks for itself. It is unequalled. We take a back seat to no one in actions on behalf of western grain farmers. While others may talk, we have taken strong, concrete and significant action. Just as we have taken action in
March 23, 1987

the past, we will continue to take action in the future, in good faith and on behalf of western Canada's farmers.
It is unfortunate that the motion has been put forward in such a negative fashion. It is a pity that it is always the dark side and the gloom and doom that seems to be coming from the benches of the NDP. In fact, there is a lot of hope out there and promise for the future. There are good things happening and I want to refer to some recent figures which indicate, for example, that employment in Canada has increased between September, 1984, and February, 1987, by 719,000. That means that 719,000 more people are working today than just two and a half years ago. The bank rate is now at 7.14 per cent. That is more than five points lower than it was in September, 1984. The prime rate is down four and one-quarter points.
It is pretty clear that the greatest gift any Government can give to Canadians, whether in farm communities, in western Canada or in any walk of life anywhere in the country, is lower interest rates. It is pretty clear that the policies of the Government over-all have led to a very, very substantial drop in interest rates, and I think it is evident that the additional investment and jobs flowing from it have been forthcoming.
I was amazed at the remarks of the previous speaker who seemed to indicate that it was the job of Government to create jobs. I would categorically reject that proposition and suggest that it is the job of Government instead to create the conditions and the environment in which small business can flourish, in which entrepreneurs can invest capital with some reasonable hope of success without being weighed down by undue interest rates. Certainly it is through the small business sector that jobs are being created. They are being created because of the policies of the Government regarding small business in western Canada and everywhere else and because of the life-time capital gains tax exemption which gives some hope for small business people to be able in fact to realize their equity out of their businesses after lifetimes of hard work.
In answer to my hon. friend's motion, I would suggest that he should ask Canadians where they would prefer to be. Would they prefer to be in Canada or would they prefer to be in some other country? Perhaps we should look at the flip side of that and ask why it is that people from virtually every nation on the face of the earth are trying by the thousands to get into Canada by any means possible. They are prepared to leave behind everything they have in order to get into Canada. In conclusion, I want to say that I am glad to be a Canadian, I am glad to be a western Canadian, and I am glad to be a western Canadian under this Government.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon, I had the honour of participating in the Forum of Young Canadians. It was brought to my attention that during today's debate, the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), in his usual way, induced the House in error. I would like to reserve my right to present a question of privilege if I see fit to do so. When I read the text of exactly
Supply
what he said about my chairmanship of the Liberal caucus, I may wish to raise a question of privilege. I found his comment totally unacceptable and totally erroneous.

Again, the Hon. Member has shown that his passion for some issues has caused him to mislead the House, and I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege if I see fit to do so. However 1 wanted to give you advanced notice right away.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair accepts the notice given by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and will entertain it later on if and when he sees fit to formally raise a question of privilege.


George Albert Proud: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) on an excellent speech. He ended by talking about a lot of people who wanted to get into our country and the feeling of hope scattered among Canadians. Since he raised the issue of people waiting to get in, and since he also spoke about the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the pay-out to be made this year, and since he is probably aware that about 22 per cent of western producers are not covered by the Act, would he tell us if there are any plans to provide another open door for those people to come in? With this coming payment the fund will be in deficit. Grain producers in eastern Canada have their grain production costs covered by the Agriculture Stabilization Act which requires no payment of premium and no previous sign-up. It requires simply the production of grain to make them eligible for a pay-out from the federal Treasury. I wonder if he has addressed this in his own caucus and if there is going to be some hope for the 22 per cent who were not originally in the program and could not get in because there were very few open windows for them.


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's concerns. That is an interesting point which I have canvassed with many of my own constituents during my travels, particularly during the summer tour I embark upon each year in an attempt to come face to face with as many agricultural producers as possible. I certainly hear expressions of mixed feelings from them. Those who are in are quite adamant that there ought not to be some form of easy entry for those who are not. There are, as the Hon. Member knows, mechanisms for entry available to those people. As to whether there should be a quickening of the pace at this point in time or some changing of the circumstances, I must say that I have not found any consensus on that from producers in my region.

March 23, 1987
Supply
However, I know the Hon. Member is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and I urge him to raise the matter there to see what sort of response is forthcoming.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments. I wonder if he can tell us if he believes that we should try to provide assistance in order to maintain the return to farmers at the 1986-87 level for the new crop year which starts August 1, 1987. Does he feel as well that the Government should maintain the freeze on freight rates? The Senior Grain Transportation Agency has recommended that it increase from about $6 a tonne to about $9 a tonne. Does he support that in view of the 20 per cent reduction in grain prices forecast by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and representatives of the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Wheat Board? Can the Hon. Member give us his views on those topics?


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises two points. The first bears on the matter of support levels for farmers in the forthcoming crop year. The Minister of Agriculture has already indicated, in response to questions in this House and elsewhere, that farmers ought not to plan production based on the criteria everyone used in this special grains program. He also indicated, and I am sure the Hon. Member knows this, that there are ongoing consultations between the Minister and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as with representatives of many farm organizations, with a view to assessing the situation and determining the appropriate response for the forthcoming year. I am sure that in doing that they will make reference to the international prices and the sort of export activity, subsidies elsewhere, and the pressures bearing on the farm community. The Hon. Member can rest assured that this Government will continue to make a generous and understanding response to the problems facing farmers, especially the hard hit grain farmers.
As to whether the form of assistance could be along the lines he posed in his question, that is some sort of a guaranteed price equivalent to what it was during the past crop year or some other level, I believe that remains to be seen. It is clear that there are those who would criticize that approach by saying that it might encourage a shifting into wheat, for example, as a result of an artificially high price. I am sure there are those in the farm community who would say that this is not the way to go. We ought not to be encouraging that at this time, rather, we ought to be encouraging the farmers with programs which address input costs and interest rates. Clearly there are literally hundreds and hundreds of proposals being discussed. I know they are being discussed in my riding among farmers everywhere, in the coffee shops, homes and halls. I think, too, that the same discussions are being held nationally. We know that the programs to be put forward, if need be, will be the proper response and will take into account the needs of Canadian producers as well as the financial ability of the Government to respond.
If I might briefly address the second point, I believe the Hon. Member asked if I would prefer to see a freeze on freight rates. I am not a transportation expert by any means. Privately, of course I would. I was under the impression that those rates were set by formula and by statute, which statute was put forward by the Hon. Member's Party some years ago. I would think he would be able to answer that question better than I.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I would first like to compliment the Hon. Member for a very capable and well-articulated address. We have come to expect that from him. During the course of his remarks he pointed out very clearly and quite properly that this Government has done more for western Canadian agriculture than any Government in a comparable period of time. However, I think those of us who live in western Canada have also bemoaned the fact that we depend so heavily on the primary resource sector. It seems to me, and I think others would agree, that if western Canada is to reach its full potential it will depend on a greater degree of diversification than has occurred to this point. Has the Hon. Member any thoughts on that subject?


Geoff Wilson: Madam Speaker, the list is long but I will try to be brief. I think there have been enormous strides made toward diversification in western Canada. In answer to my hon. friend I would like to refer to a couple of matters in Saskatchewan. Presently the second largest paper mill in Canada, which will produce 600 new jobs, is being built in the Prince Albert area. An ERDA agreement has been signed between Saskatchewan and the federal Government which will cause $100 million to be spent in the irrigation sector in Saskatchewan. The Government of Canada has guaranteed $250 million to $300 million worth of loans to assist in the new Regina upgrader project. This is the largest project of its kind in Canada at the present time. It will upgrade Saskatchewan heavy and medium crude oil which will give us an opportunity to refine these products at home in Saskatchewan.
In my own City of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in the first three months of this year there are already four times as many applications for building permits as there were in the entire previous year. There is a mall project going ahead there which has been talked about for years and is finally coming to fruition, notwithstanding low farm and oil prices. It is coming into play now because of low interest rates and the outstanding economic policies of the Government.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. The first sentence of the motion before us reads:
That this House condemns the government for its lack of a long term economic
development strategy for Western Canada that would, among other things-
March 23, 1987

It goes on to deal with the agricultural sector, the forest industry, the energy sector and the need for economic diversification in western Canada. The motion before the House condemns the Government for its lack of a long-term economic development strategy for Canada. I would like to put my opinion with regard to this motion and the poor performance of the Government on the record in the few minutes which are available to me today.
To put it briefly, I think the Government has simply forgotten western Canada. I will give you three reasons why I think that is the case. I want to discuss three aspects of western economic development. I want to discuss briefly the political promises which the Conservatives made when they were seeking office, particularly those promises made to western Canada. I want to discuss what is actually going on in western Canada today and I want to take a brief look at the Government's economic policies.
If 1 can have the attention of the House, Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that when the Conservatives were running for office they promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". They promised to make a place around the Cabinet table for western Canada. They promised to bring western Canada in from the cold with regard to power and decision-making. Those were the promises, but what has been the result, what kind of performance has the Government put on? It has certainly been a performance in the theatrical sense, but with regard to the promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs", as indicated in an article in The Globe and Mail of February 28, the jobs which have been created have been created in Ontario and not in western Canada. The article by Ross Howard says:
Between January, 1986, and January of this year, the total number of jobs in
the country rose by 137,000, according to unadjusted figures. But only 5,000
of those jobs were created outside Ontario.
The article also says that:
-more than 95 per cent of the additional jobs created last year were located
in one province-Ontario.
The promise of "jobs, jobs, jobs" has been real for the Golden Horseshoe of Ontario, but it has been a lie for western Canada. The jobs which were promised by the Government have not been created in western Canada. What has been the result of the promise to include western Canadians in the economic decision-making of the country? Briefly, the result has been that farmers are in difficulty today due to the performance of the Government. Small Canadian oil companies in Alberta are endangered due to the performance of the Government. Support is rising throughout western Canada for the western separatist Party as a result of the actions of the Government. Even more ludicrous is the fact that the Government has revived support in western Canada for the Liberal Party. That is an achievement, albeit a negative one. I hope the Liberal Party, stem and trunk, has not been revived, but it has certainly been revived in the public opinion polls.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. 1 know it is very close to six o'clock, but I think the Hon. Member should be allowed the courtesy of being able to hear himself when
Adjournment Debate
addressing the House. The Chair is having a difficult time understanding what the Hon. Member is saying. There are Members from all Parties who are talking rather loudly. Let us give the floor to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) and let us pay attention.


Cyril Keeper: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I would appreciate being heard. I want to discuss briefly the economic performance of the Government in western Canada. With regard to the softwood industry in British Columbia the Government buckled under to American pressure and applied tariffs to our own products. When our products were competing well in the United States the Government failed in negotiations with the Americans. The actions which the Government took to help the oil industry in Alberta helped the multinationals but failed to help small Canadian companies. In Saskatchewan and other western provinces farmers are having a very difficult time surviving today. While the Government has taken some action with regard to the agricultural industry, it is insufficient to assure farmers that they can survive and to give them enough confidence to plant in the forthcoming season. The Government took a swipe at Manitoba's capacity for industrial development. When Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg won the bidding process for the CF-18 contract, which is of major industrial benefit, the Government took it away from Manitoba and gave it to Quebec on the basis of a political decision.
When I look at what has happened in western Canada I see that the performance of the Government is dismal and that it is time for the Government to wake up and realize that it raised expectations and made serious promises in western Canada. We want an industrial policy and an economic strategy for western Canada. We want to be more than only hewers of wood and drawers of water. We want in on industrial development. We want our fair share of the economic pie and we expect the Government to live up to its promises made when it was running for public office. It is not enough simply to have people around the cabinet table. The Ministers must be effective in fighting for western Canada. We are waiting for that to happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12) the proceedings on the motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
March 23, 1987
Adjournment Debate

Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, this evening I have a question for you. Do you believe in polls? I do not mean telephone poles or hydro poles, or even barber poles. I mean public opinion polls. I can tell, Madam Speaker, that like me, there are probably one or two recent polls in which you would rather not believe. However, I believe in public opinion polls and I suspect that you do as well.
Recently there were two public opinion polls on the question of acid rain. Those polls found that two out of five Canadians believe that reaching an acid rain agreement with the United States is even more important than reaching a trade agreement with the United States, as far as Canada is concerned.
Acid rain comes from emissions that originate from coal-fired smelters, from non-ferrous smelters like the Inco smelter, and emissions from automobiles. These emissions float into the air, seem to go a long distance, and come down to have a devastating effect on our environment. We know that these emissions cause damage to fish, birds, lakes, trees and to buildings all around us.
At least half of these emissions emanate from the United States. It is no wonder that Canadians are concerned about these acid rain emissions and getting some sort of agreement with the United States to solve the acid rain problem. In the same poll to which I referred, 60 per cent of Canadians who responded indicated that they felt our Government was not doing enough about getting an agreement with the United States on acid rain.
That prompted me to think about just what the Government has done about acid rain since it came to office in the last two and a half years. It made me think back to the fact that in January, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that Canada could not expect to make any progress with the United States in its negotiations unless we came to the negotiating table with clean hands and unless we got our own house in order.
In February, 1985, I remember that the federal and provincial Environment Ministers came together to agree on some targets to achieve the goal of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada by some 50 per cent of their 1980 levels by the year 1994. The federal Government agreed to put up financial assistance, as did the provinces, to help those smelters ensure that they could meet those targets and reduce those acid rain emissions.
I also remember that in March, 1985, the Prime Minister announced a national program for reducing acid rain emissions in Canada. That included new automobile emission standards, $150 million for smelter emission controls, $25 million for technology development, $70 million for cleaner and more efficient use of coal, $18 million a year for research and monitoring, and a study of the increased use of low sulphur western coal. All of that amounted at the time to a commitment of some $300 million on the part of the federal Government toward acid rain control in this country.
In March of that same year Hon. Members will remember that the Prime Minister met with President Reagan at the so-called Shamrock Summit. At that time they agreed to appoint acid rain envoys, Mr. Bill Davis, the former Premier of Ontario, and Mr. Drew Lewis, to study and identify ways of solving the problem.
In July of 1985 the federal Government announced new automobile emission standards that would be effective in September of this year. In January of last year the Special Envoys reported and recommended ways in which the United States could implement a five-year, $5 billion clean coal technology program. Then, in March of last year, President Reagan announced that he was endorsing that program. At the same time the Canadian Government announced that it was providing $9 million to assist the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, Inco and Falconbridge, to meet their deadlines for reducing acid rain emissions in this country. In March of this year you will recall, Madam Speaker, that the federal Government and the provinces began entering into formal abatement agreements. Hopefully, all of these agreements will be entered into soon.
Those are the steps that we have been taking in this country. What have the Americans been doing? Until recently, in fact just up until last week, it has been hard to see exactly what they have been doing. In fact, until last week they had no indication whatsoever of even putting money in their budget. Last week they announced they were going to do so. However, I heard the President of the United States on television last Thursday indicating that he still was not sure what the real problem was with acid rain. We are now coming to the point where it is up to Canada to meet with the United States, meet with President Reagan, to see what we can do about getting the Americans to finally get moving on this issue.
Tonight, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that when our Prime Minister meets with President Reagan very shortly that he will give him an even bigger earful than he gave to Vice-President Bush just a few weeks ago.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, in March of 1986 President Reagan endorsed the Report of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain and their recommendations, as was just mentioned by the Hon. Member. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took that as a commitment by the administration that acid rain was a serious transboundary problem and that it would seek the funds necessary to implement the Special Envoys' Report. The President's 1988 budget proposal submitted to Congress in January of this year provided the first concrete information on the U.S. response to the President's commitment.
The initiatives outlined in that budget proposal fell far short of meeting the commitments made to Canada by President Reagan. This was the clear message that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and
March 23, 1987

the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) gave to Vice-President Bush at their meeting on January 21.
However, as recently as last week President Reagan announced several initiatives. These initiatives represent a significant and important step forward in our efforts to develop the bilateral accord that will provide a long-term, lasting solution to the acid rain problem. They will also put specific substance and timetable to the general commitments that he made at the 1986 summit meeting.
For instance, the administration will secure $500 million per year in new funds for each of the next five years to cost share clean coal commercial demonstration projects which meet the criteria of the Special Envoys. The projects will not be of a research nature but, rather, will be to demonstrate new cost-effective technologies on a commercial scale and to reduce the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide into eastern Canada. The projects to be funded under the program will be selected by a panel which will include Canadian government representatives. The administration is also examining its economic and regulatory programs to determine any disincentives that may exist to the implementation of pollution controls.
Reaching this agreement before the summit will allow the Prime Minister and President Reagan to discuss how to move the issue even further ahead at their next meeting. The Canadian objective is to get the United States to reduce its transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide into eastern Canada to about two million tonnes, about 50 per cent of the 1980 level, and to implement programs to achieve this level on a scheduled basis. This objective is based on sound scientific information and existing principles and obligations under international law that countries must ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other countries.
The commitment to our objective holds strong. Acid rain will be one of the top agenda items at the April 6 summit meeting and we will do everything possible in the weeks leading to the summit to advance the issue.
[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION-(A) LINGUISTIC POLICY- GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) MANNER IN WHICH POLICY IS APPLIED
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this evening concerns the linguistic policy of the Canada Post Corporation.
First, I would like to make something clear for all those who might be interested in this debate.
I personally believe in bilingual services whenever practical and possible. I am also very concerned about the linguistic problem, especially in Quebec, which can be a very emotional problem, as I know personally since I represent the constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou which was the scene of a well-publicized linguistic conflict a while back. I can therefore assure all my colleagues, Madam Speaker, that I have no intention of initiating a linguistic debate.
Adjournment Debate
What I want to show this evening is that the Canada Post Corporation is doing everything possible to reduce its staff, harass its customers and cause people to wonder whether or not Canada really has a postal service.
Now for the facts. I shall start with an official document of the Canada Post Corporation where we find, on page 5, under the title "Guidelines for the publication of press releases and instructions, Quebec Division":
Official languages
The Quebec Division having been identified by the Official languages Commissioner as a unilingual French Division, all press releases and instructions will be written in French only. The English version of these documents will be available on request.
However, it is essential that communications with the outside public be published in both official languages when the English-speaking segment represents at least 10 per cent of the total population.
Madam Speaker, according to the figures, the Englishspeaking population of Quebec City and the area is only 2.8 per cent. This guideline therefore applies.
At the beginning of December, as soon as Canada Post submitted its corporate plan, it immediately issued new directives, announcing that from now on, the Customer Services Division, and perhaps I should explain that this is a technical division and not one that deals directly with customers, would be a bilingual division. I have no quarrel with the fact that Canada Post is free to issue such directives and to switch its divisions around, provided, Madam Speaker, employees who had these jobs when the division was still considered unilingual French, are given the time and assistance they need to become bilingual.
Unfortunately, Canada Post did as follows: From now on, this is a bilingual division so you are redundant. If you want to reapply to get your job back, you will have to prove that you are bilingual and you will not be given the necessary time or resources to become bilingual.
Madam Speaker, I think this is an intolerable situation for Quebec City, where only 2.8 per cent of the population is English-speaking, and it is unacceptable also because the policy was effective the day after it was announced.
Madam Speaker, I put the question to the Minister, and I was very disappointed at his reply which was that as a Minister, he could hardly be expected to be involved in that kind of minute details of the Corporation's operations. However, it is not a minute detail but a fundamental issue, Madam Speaker. It seems we are always having trouble with Canada Post which takes measures and takes the kind of action which makes one wonder about the measure of intelligence involved. We saw that this weekend, when someone at Canada Post, instead of trying to improve customer services, took the time to write a letter to Members of this House, to send us ... , and I imagine Madam Speaker, you also received the same form letter. They wrote us a letter saying: You have had complaints from your ridings, and this is how to answer those complaints. Since when is a Member of the House going to let someone at Canada Post dictate the answers he should

March 23, 1987
Adjournment Debate
give to his constituents? Who do the people working for the Canada Post Corporation think they are, Madam Speaker? These are the reasons why I was very disappointed with the reply of the Minister. We have a Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, and if he really is responsible for the Corporation, he should immediately deal with the problem and instruct Canada Post to serve the taxpayers properly. Leave the Members of Parliament alone; they know what to tell their own constituents. We have no need for a model letter telling us how to answer their questions. We also believe that the employees should be given a chance. This is a harassment policy. How can there be any peace in the service when every opportunity is used to create further conflict? Who pays in the end? It is the public, the people who need the service.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I shall try to reply to my colleague and to respond to his concerns.
The Canada Post Corporation must obey the laws of Canada in all its activities, which includes the interpretation of the Official Languages Act. About a month ago, certain media reported that a number of Canada Post Corporation employees in Quebec City had been judged surplus to requirements by corporate management because they were not bilingual and did not speak English. Such is not the case, Madam Speaker.
When the sales and customer services department in Quebec City was reorganized last December, there was absolutely no change for 13 positions. Nine other positions were reclassified in order to better reflect the additional duties added to those positions, also reflecting the requirements of the Official Languages Act. In the course of that reorganization, customer service representative positions were reclassified from grade 2 to grade 3. This means that Customer Sales Service was added to the duties of grade 2 positions, which come under Customer Service. The new grade 3 positions have become bilingual.
Since bilingualism is a required qualification for the new positions, the corporation has made available to the employees involved, free of charge, an intensive course.
In the meantime, those employees are still working for the corporation, which has decided to wait for those employees to complete their intensive courses before considering any application for the new positions.
This does not necessarily mean they will be appointed, but Canada Post Corporation will have made the effort. Linder the existing agreement with the union, any corporation employee must be allowed to apply for the newly created positions.
The corporation's Chairman, Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, has informed us that Canada Post is committed, over the coming months and years, to better identify its customers' linguistic preferences and to offer them additional bilingual counter and telephone services.
The corporation's service to the public takes into account first language data as established by Statistics Canada, by
census divisions. The corporation is now reprocessing those statistics and expects to have in hand more pertinent data on the language profile of all its postal communities. Management officials will thus be able to make more accurate forecasts of linguistic requirements concerning over-the-counter services.
Telephone service in both official languages is another major Canada Post objective, and this is why management are now re-examining their telephone network and, more specifically, the services available in their 25 customer service units. They are considering such technological breakthroughs in this field as might enable them to meet the demand for information in English and French throughout Canada. The plan now being developed by Canada Post should have an impact on all telephone directories from coast to coast as of the beginning of fiscal year 1987-88.
In the next few months, Canada Post senior officials will be urged to play a more active and direct role in defining specific official languages objectives. Canada Post will also make sure that senior officials keep a closer and more formal progress watch through employee appraisal reports.
Since these appraisal reports bear directly on remuneration and promotion opportunities, they are tantamount to applying the good old carrot and stick principle which has proved to be quite successful over centuries. I do not see why it would not work just as well at Canada Post.


RAILWAYS-GRAIN FREIGHT RATES. (B) REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF FREEZE ON FREIGHT RATES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on February 16 I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), asking him to give a clear indication of what the Government was going to do with regard to grain freight rates for western farmers. As you know, farmers are suffering through one of the most difficult times in their history. In the last general election, the Government Party made a clear commitment to maintain the freeze on western grain freight rates charged to farmers until the farmers were better able to make larger payments for grain freight rates.
A report has now been passed from the Senior Grain Transportation Agency to the Canadian Transport Commission indicating that grain freight rates will rise from $6 to approximately $8.50 or $9 per tonne in the coming crop year. Last year, on April 30, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) called a hurried press conference announcing that he was freezing freight rates to help farmers in their serious difficult time. That time is even more difficult today.
I put a question to the then Minister of Transport. He indicated that the Government would look at it, consider it, but he did not give a clear commitment. The Government did
March 23, 1987

not really freeze freight rates last year. The then Minister of Transport, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), simply sent back the recommendation from the Senior Grain Transportation Agency which suggested that the volume of wheat to be shipped last year was something like 3.5 million tonnes. Tie asked the agency to reduce its estimates to around 27 or 29 million tonnes, which it did, to 28.5 million tonnes.
As a result, grain freight rates charged to farmers did not rise last year. Elowever, the volume to be shipped in this current crop year has been increased from 28.5 million tonnes to around 31 million tonnes. All of the surplus funds which were in the tally averaging account of the Department have been used up. We are facing a new crop year on August 1 in which the volume has been estimated at close to 31 million tonnes. The Government has to face the prospect, since the Minister of Transport last year reduced the volume, that there will be a serious short-fall.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary responding on behalf of the Minister of Transport this evening will indicate that the Government will maintain the freeze on western freight rates charged to farmers in the new crop year and that the Government will not increase rates by 50 per cent, as has been forecast by the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. If we have an increase of the magnitude of about $3 a tonne, western farmers will be looking at an additional transportation cost of some $90 million to $100 million. This is absolutely unacceptable in the light of reduced grain prices in the new crop year and all the other difficulties facing the western grain industry.
In addition, the Government has not acted on a recommendation of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee which would increase the amount of funds in the Crow benefit by some $25 million, original amount in the Crow benefit was $658 million. The Canadian National Railways has indicated that it should be providing an extra $25 million. That recommendation came to the Department last September-October but still no action has been taken. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Government is increasing the Crow benefit by some $25 million as recommended by the CNR and by the Senior Grain Transportation Committee from $658 million to $583 million. That amount would also assist in alleviating the desperate situation western
Adjournment Debate
grain producers face in the new crop year with the Government indicating that commodity prices for wheat, barley and other western grains will be reduced by some 20 per cent.


John B. Stewart: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said on February 16 that it is still too early to know for certain what will be the rail rate for grain which will come into effect next August 1. Under the provisions of the Western Grain Transportation Act, the administrator of the Grain Transportation Agency, the Hon. Jack Horner, has now issued his official tonnage forecast which is
31.8	million tonnes. The Act then requires that the Canadian Transport Commission use this grain forecast to set the new rail rate. The CTC has until April 30 to complete its calculations and issue the new rate.
When the Government came into office, we moved immediately on amendments to the legislation to implement our election promise to establish a ceiling on the shippers' share of the grain freight rates. The passage of Bill C-44 limited the shippers' share to a maximum of $7.70 per tonne until July 1987. Indeed, the producers' actual share of the freight rate was $7.70 per tonne in 1984-85, $6 per tonne in 1985-86 and $5.97 per tonne in 1986-87. As a consequence, over the past two years, the producers' share of the freight rate fell by more than 20 per cent since we came into office. It now represents a relatively small proportion of the producers' total input costs.
The CTC has not yet calculated the freight rate for 1987-88.
I	would remind the Hon. Member of the announcement of a $1 billion assistance program for grain producers made on December 9, 1986. Under the Special Canadian Grains Program, Canada's grain and oilseed farmers will receive cash payments to cushion the impact of the subsidy war between the EEC and the United States. The Government is indeed sensitive to the plight of Canadian grain farmers.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 24, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers