1987-05-21

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to present the Government's comprehensive response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official languages. That report was made on January 29, 1987, and was entitled: "Federal Policy Concerning Museums".


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-1918, 332-2037, 332-2052, 332-2077 to 332-2081 inclusive, 332-2150, 332-2188, 332-2198, 332-2429, 332-2430 and 332-2436.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the twentieth report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, 1 intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PETITIONS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House signed by a number of citizens of The Battlefords- Meadow Lake constituency. This is one of a series of petitions signed by individuals who protest the killing of thousands of unborn Canadians each year whose only crime is the crime of being unwanted.
The petitioners humbly pray and ask this Parliament to consider passage of M-37, which is the motion under the name of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) which asks the Government to ensure the right to life of the unborn in Canada.
This petition does meet the requirements of Standing Order 106.


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, today I have a petition signed by a large number of residents in my riding who are opposed to the closing down of Post Offices in small municipalities.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 33 people from the City of Yellowknife, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, in respect of the Fred Turner and Turnair matter.
The petitioners seek the appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the case which Mr. Turner has with the Government of Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission.

May 21, 1987
Holidays Act HOLIDAYS ACT


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an Act to amend the Holidays Act (Dominion Day).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Henry Reimer: I rise to introduce for first reading a Bill to amend the Holidays Act, to substitute " Dominion Day" for "Canada Day". The purpose of the Bill is to call July 1 "Dominion Day", to more faithfully reflect the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation in their selection of the name "Dominion of Canada" as a vision of a sovereign nation extending from sea to sea. It is important that all Canadians, whatever their ancestry, be united under the conviction that ours is and always must be a sovereign nation.
[DOT] (mo)
Surely no title better captivates the historical and political realities of Canada than "Dominion Day".


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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I move that the twentieth report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this next motion pertains to the visit of His Excellency the President of France, Francis Mitterrand, to Canada next week. The motion is as follows:
That notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the
House adjourns on Friday, May 22, 1987, it shall stand adjourned until II
o'clock a.m., on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
That the Address of His Excellency Francois Mitterrand, President of the French Republic, to be delivered in the House Chamber on Monday, May 25, 1987, at 3 o'clock p.m., before Members of the Senate and Members of the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of Tuesday, May 26, 1987, and form part of the records of this House; and That media recording and transmission of such Address, introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to guidelines for this occasion issued by the Speaker of this House pursuant to consultation with the Parties' House Leaders, dated March 31, 1987; and
That Monday, May 25, 1987, be deemed a sitting day for the purpose of the Office of the Clerk being able to receive Order Paper notices.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary were discussed by the Parties, and we are pleased that this formula will enable the House to receive the President of France in a manner equivalent to the reception it gave the President of the United States, and we therefore give our consent.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we too are in agreement. It will be interesting to see our Senators come into an elected Chamber.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to make a comment with respect to decorum, in view of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy); but I will refrain from so doing.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my final motion, which again has been the subject of discussion among the House Leaders, deals with the estimates of the Multiculturalism Directorate. The motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding the order made on March 2, 1987, the operating expenditures of the Multiculturalism Directorate under Vote 1 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, of the Department of the Secretary of State in the amount of $5,536,000, together with the grants made by the said Directorate under Vote 5 of the Main Estimates of the said Department in the amount of $14,505,000, as well as the contributions made by the Directorate under the same vote in the amount of $3,262,000 be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Secretary of State and be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism pursuant to Standing Order 82(15).
May 21, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader does have our consent to proceed with this motion. We would hope that in the future this would be the prescribed form for those particular Estimates; that is, that the estimates in respect of the Multiculturalism Directorate be automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, rather than having a special order passed year after year.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 82-ALBERTA ECONOMY Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:
That this House expresses its disappointment with the Government for its failure to deal effectively with the severe economic recession in Alberta which has resulted in, among other things:
(1)	Alberta having the worst performance of any provincial economy in Canada which the Conference Board of Canada has estimated will shrink in over-all terms for the second consecutive year;
(2)	a loss of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the oil and gas industry;
(3)	leaving Alberta farmers with 23 per cent of Canada's outstanding farm debt;
(4)	causing on average 600 new families per month to be placed on welfare; and
(5)	Alberta having the highest per capita suicide rate in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution deals specifically with Alberta, but I suppose more generally the debate today is on western Canada. It will be focused upon Alberta and hopefully expanded to the economic plight and difficulty of people in western Canada.
Supply
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has just returned from western Canada. While he was there, he was reported to have said that his Government had made some mistakes. I guess that makes it unanimous now; even the Prime Minister agrees, as does the whole country.
The resolution is based upon the report of the Conference Board of Canada, a non-partisan group with a good history. If anything, it is fairly small, conservative and business-oriented. Its report was published the other day. It is really a sad report for western Canada, but for Alberta in particular.
The Conference Board indicated that the Alberta economy will have the worst performing provincial economy in Canada and that growth will be down for the second consecutive year. Last year it was down .7 per cent; this year it will fall by 1.1 per cent. I will return to that issue in a minute and deal with some of the details of the performance of the Alberta economy.
However, I should like to indicate how we in the New Democratic Party feel. We think now, more than ever, that we must rise in the House to present motions and to ask questions on behalf of ordinary Albertans, because Alberta is not being very well represented by the silent 20. I used to call them the silent 21, but one of them spoke out.
At a time when a Member of the House, Mr. Bissonnette, is under investigation by the RCMP for allegedly profiting from a land deal in his riding; at a time when another Member, Mr. Stevens, the Member from York, has been at the centre of a major conflict-of-interest hearing; and at a time when another Member, Mr. Gravel, faces 50 charges of influence peddling and breach of trust, it is the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona, (Mr. Kilgour), who gets booted out of the Conservative caucus. Western Canadians, Albertans in particular, wonder about the standards which that caucus is observing. Perhaps we will hear about that today. No doubt we will hear from the chairperson of the Alberta caucus.
Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very valid point of order. I have been in the House for 13 years and I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has been in the House for a significant period of time. He knows clearly and factually that he is not to make a reference to Members of the House of Commons by their names. He has just gone through a list of three or four of them. He knows that is inappropriate; he is experienced enough to know better. I ask the Chair to ensure that he refrains from doing what he knows to be unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I just want to assure him that this will not count as debating time.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Hon. Member is right. I was trying to put it in terms which people who do not know the seats of Members could understand.
Let me rephrase it. One Member from Quebec, from the Saint-Jean area, is under RCMP investigation for a land deal.

May 21, 1987
Supply
Another Member from Toronto has just been the subject of a conflict-of-interest hearing. A third Conservative Member, a Member from Quebec, faces 50 charges of influence peddling. Elowever, who is it that the Conservatives kick out of their caucus? It is the Eton. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I find that to be very strange behaviour. I invite the chairperson of the Alberta caucus to rise to his feet to explain that to us.
Incidentally, I hope the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona will be able to take part in the debate. I for one- and I think it is the case with many other Canadians, especially westerners-would like to hear what he has to say.
I want to talk about the Alberta economy, and 1 think it will be a little more non-partisan. The facts speak for themselves. I already mentioned what the Conference Board indicated about economic growth. It also indicated that while economic growth will be up in Ontario and Quebec, especially in the Golden Horseshoe area of Ontario, it will be down-indeed it will be negative-next year in Alberta. This means problems for Alberta and problems for Canada. There has also been a loss of 25,000 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs in the oil and gas industry last year.
While in the upstream the exploration and development revenues of the oil industry fell by 64 per cent in 1986 over 1985, the revenues from the refining operations of the major integrated oil companies increased by 110 per cent. While the small Canadian-owned oil and gas companies which operate almost exclusively in Alberta were squeezed, the major oil companies which operate in the downstream, that is, in refining, wholesaling, and retailing, at the gas pumps, were able to make money.
The economy of Alberta is still based upon the oil industry. That is its number one industry. I think oil and farming are the keys to the Alberta economy, and the oil industry is down. The major, largely foreign-controlled oil companies are making money because they have outlets in Ontario, Quebec, and other places; they are making enough money to buy out and take over other companies, and we are already seeing that happening to small Alberta oil companies which, in many ways, are the backbone of the oil economy. They are the efficient ones which actually explore to a greater extent than the major companies.
In 1986, as opposed to 1985, moneys spent on takeovers and acquisitions in the oil and gas sector rose by nearly 60 per cent, from $2.2 billion to $3.5 billion. There have been takeovers of oil companies and so on. That does not help the Alberta economy and is one of the reasons it is down. The money is largely wasted on takeovers, not used usefully and productively in the sense of getting out there and exploring for more oil.
Of course the oil industry is tied to the world price, and that is the key to the recovery of the oil industry. It is also another reason the Alberta economy is down.
There is a heritage fund in Alberta. Many Canadians think that Alberta is loaded with money, that it has it all socked away in the heritage fund. However, that fund is tied up in
loans to other provinces and therefore not easily tapped by the provincial Government for needed revenues. In short, Alberta is not awash in petro-dollars from the 1970s and early 1980s when its economy was booming.
Those are some of the reasons the Alberta economy is in trouble, but there is a double whammy. Earlier I mentioned the farm economy. Average land values have fallen by 50 per cent in Alberta between 1981 and 1986. Alberta farmers had $5.06 billion in outstanding loans at year end, 1986. Alberta farmers owe 23 per cent of Canada's outstanding farm debt. In 1986, 800 farm families had to abandon their farms. In 1983, the figure was only 300. The realized net income from farming declined by 39 per cent in 1987.
I am from an urban constituency in Vancouver, but I had the opportunity to listen to the emergency debate on farming which the New Democratic Party requested and to which the Speaker agreed. It was the second longest debate in parliamentary history. A lot of good material was brought out. Through that debate and through a visit to a farm in Carstairs, Alberta, as well as talking with farmers in rural Alberta, I learned something about farming.
I hear the Hon. Member laughing. I do not pretend to be an expert. Probably he is an expert on farming or cattle ranching. I will be pleased to hear from him. What I am trying to say is that as someone from an urban riding like mine in central Vancouver I am beginning to see that farmers are faced with an incredibly difficult problem. We have a farm crisis and I have recited the figures.
[DOT] (M30)
There is a problem with the world economy and, as I recall from a recent debate, I think that wheat prices were down last year 20 per cent, and they will be down another 18 per cent in the upcoming year. We have a subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States. Farmers in other countries have their prices subsidized, but our treasury is not bottomless. That makes for further difficulty. There is a double whammy to the Alberta economy. World oil prices are down and world farm prices are down, especially grain prices. Farmers and small oil companies are experiencing great difficulties.
Statistics just out indicate that the unemployment rate for Alberta has risen from 10.8 per cent in April, 1986, to 11 per cent in April, 1987. Alberta used to have a low unemployment rate. Now it has a high rate and an unacceptable one. It is extremely difficult for young people between the ages of 17 and 25 to get jobs. In that age group the unemployment rate is 17.5 per cent. Young people are leaving Alberta and that is not good for families.
Alberta has the highest annual suicide rate per capita of any province in Canada at 16.9 per 100,000 people. Farm suicides in Alberta, I am told, have risen from 15.1 per 100,000 people in 1983 to 40.6 per 100,000 people in 1986. In short, the Alberta economy is in trouble on the oil front and on the farm
May 21, 1987

front, and this is reflected in high unemployment and in turmoil evident among the population of Alberta.
What has been the reaction of the Progressive Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker? First, let me quote from the Calgary Herald for January 22, 1987, under a column entitled "Priorities? Really?" It reads:
In comedy, it's timing. In business, it's location. In politics, it's priorities. Calgary North MP Paul Gagnon has managed to fail on all three counts. One short week after his government rejected the Syncrude loan proposal, the MP returned to his constituency to utter these telling words: "Certainly REAL Women is a No. 1 priority for the Alberta caucus."
With priorities like this, is it any wonder that the Syncrude proposal fell flat? And with priorities like this, it sure would be a good time to be an opposition candidate in Calgary North.
Those were not my words, Mr. Speaker. That was an article from the Calgary Herald.
In an editorial written in The Edmonton Journal for January 23, 1987 we read:
It is fortunate that Paul Gagnon doesn't set the agenda for Alberta's 21-member federal Tory caucus.
Pithy issues such as softwood lumber tariffs, federal support for Syncrude, assistance for farmers and polls which show Mulroney's government is on the skids don't furrow his brow. No, the Conservative MP for Calgary North has a more important item on his mind-federal funding for a anti-feminist lobby group.
Other Alberta MPs have expressed their concerns about women in submarines, I believe-or is it gay people in submarines? I cannot quite remember which one it is. That seemed to be one of the priorities affecting a couple of Members of Parliament from Alberta. It seems to me that their priorities are misdirected. They should stick to bread and butter issues.
On May 19, this week I asked the Prime Minister about the Conference Board of Canada's report. I said:
The Conference Board of Canada indicated today that the Alberta economy was one of the worst in the country. It predicted a drop in Real Domestic Product of 1.1 per cent for 1987.
-I ask the Prime Minister to name one positive measure he is prepared to take today to help the sick economy in Alberta.
The Prime Minister replied:
What truly crippled the economy of Alberta was the National Energy Program.
He then proposed that the New Democrats had voted for the National Energy Program. I just want to take a minute to deal with that; first, with respect to what crippled the economy. Yes, the National Energy Program hurt the economy for various reasons. We in the NDP at that time opposed the National Energy Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is true. Members can make up myths. I just ask them to listen to me. I was the critic at the time and I will tell them why we opposed it. It is on the record.
We opposed it because the program would shift exploration out of the western sedimentary basin, that is basically Alberta,
Supply
to the frontiers. There was a war between then Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Lougheed over power. The frontiers were controlled by the federal Government, but in Alberta control was by the provincial Government. That was one of the reasons for the program. There are various others. I suggest Members read a book written by Professors Toner and Doern who wrote about the National Energy Program.
With respect to voting, there were 15 Bills. I asked the Library of Parliament to prepare a list; it was prepared on April 11, 1985. The Library wrote:
As requested, please find enclosed a table showing the voting record of the three political parties on fifteen Bills, passed during the First Session of the 32nd Parliament, which implemented the National Energy Program.
The fifteen Bills were the following. The first was Bill C-48 on the offshore exploration. Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Next came a Bill on the excise tax which was passed by a voice vote, then a Bill on the National Energy Board also passed by a voice vote. Then we had Bill C-75 on home insulation, passed by a voice vote. Another home insulation Bill was passed by a voice vote. Bill C-77 on oil substitution was passed by a voice vote. National Energy Board amendments and Bill C-87 was passed by a voice vote. Bill C-101 to increase Petro-Canada's power, the NDP voted for it and the Conservatives voted against it. That is one. Next came Bill C-102 which dealt with the Department of Energy. Both the Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Bill C-103, the Petroleum Administration Act, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Bill C-104 concerning the Petroleum Incentive Program, the PIP grants, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Bill C-105, the Business Corporations Bill, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Bill C-106, the Energy Monitoring Bill, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it. Bill C-107 the Motor Fuel Bill, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it, and Bill C-108, amendments to the National Energy Board, the Conservatives and NDP voted against it.
I would like the Page to take this list and give it to the chairman of the Alberta caucus so he can see the truth.
Actions by the Government have been band-aid actions. For example, when was removal of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax done? It was done just before the Pembina by-election. That looked like a reaction to a strong NDP challenge which people recognized in Alberta. Another example is the loan guarantees to Syncrude, largely symbolic, but important for the West. It is important that those guarantees be given even after they were hinted at and almost promised. People were disappointed about that.
Then there is a certain degree of stupidity. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) is spending most of his time on matters that are irrelevant to Alberta. He is bringing Francophones into his department, something which needs to be done, but that is not the top priority. We have an oil crisis in Alberta. The Minister has instituted a $3 million study on energy. Who is going to do it; apparently a Mr. Tom Kierans, a former associate of the Big Blue Machine in

May 21, 1987
Supply
Ontario, a Toronto businessman. Western Canadians, specifically Albertans, do not want Toronto businessman studying their oil industry. They have made lots of suggestions to the Government.
We have raised the matter of Dome Petroleum, an important issue with which the Minister of Energy is dealing. We New Democrats have opposed the Amoco take-over of Dome. We think this is a backward step. Just when the west is trying to get out of a dependant relationship with eastern Canada and the United States, the Government, in contradiction to previous policies, reduces the level of Canadian ownership from 50 per cent to 40 per cent with this one deal. That means when the oil glut ends in the 1990s the multinationals will again be the beneficiaries, and the ordinary Albertan and the small oil companies will lose out.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Your time has just expired. Questions or comments? Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I had more time. I realize that you were signalling that my time was up but I thought, as lead-off speaker, that I had more time. Perhaps I could ask permission of the House to have two minutes to sum up? I want to sum up by making positive suggestions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have two minutes to sum up his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that when I conclude my remarks I will be more than happy to entertain at least two minutes of questions from the Hon. Member so that he can complete what I thought was a very useful and intelligent description of some of the important issues facing this House.
In the last three or four months this House has had the occasion, mainly through opposition resolutions, to address a series of motions dealing with the issues facing western Canada. We introduced a resolution in December and one in the new year. There was a three-day farm debate and now we are dealing with a resolution presented by members of the New Democratic caucus.
In each of those debates we attempted to describe a deteriorating situation in western Canada, to provide some clear warning of the consequences for the entire country, and to prescribe some responses to it.
I must say that what we have received from the Government in return has not been particularly rewarding. The only result we have seen so far is the latest tour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who went to western Canada for a three-day shopping centre visit where there were controlled crowds, with
limited exposure. There was no real attempt to come to grips with the issues by dealing with the problems that exist there.
While we could go over the many statistics that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has just provided, I think it is perhaps much better to look at the situation as one would look at a series of pictures, to more graphically illustrate the kinds of difficulties people are facing in Alberta and western Canada.
I was struck by an article that appeared in the Calgary Herald on May 18. It is entitled: "Idle Nisku shocks Tory tour". It describes how a group of Tory Members of Parliament from other parts of Canada visited Alberta and found just how bad things were in the oil service industry. The article states:
"I thought it was a lot better than that", Jean-Guy Guilbault, MP for the
central Quebec riding of Drummond, said after a brief tour around the
depressed Nisku industrial park.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Your National Energy Program crippled that park.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now we hear from the Members of Alberta the time honoured refrain that it was the NEP that did it. Let me pose an interesting question to the Hon. Members from Alberta. Why was there far less drilling activity last year than there was in 1983, 1984, and 1985 when the National Energy Program was in effect? If their policies were so brilliant and insightful, why had the oil industry, which had a capital investment of over $9 billion in 1985 when the NEP was still in effect and just beginning to be dismantled, failed by $4.5 billion by the next year?
I suggest to the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) that when the National Energy Program was in effect there was $9.5 billion of capital investment going into the oil industry. When his Government came to power and began to dismantle that program, the result was 50 per cent less drilling activity and $5 billion less in capital investment in that industry. The Member shakes his head, but those are the facts.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Not all the facts.


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps we can see the problem. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway properly pointed out that Tory Members of Parliament, with one or two exceptions, are incapable of seeing the facts. They do not have the capacity to remove their ideological blinders that have so mesmerized them over the years. Their problem is that they made the worst political mistake by believing their own propaganda, therefore ignoring the reality in the region they are supposed to represent. Consequently, they try to find scapegoats, try to blame others, and try to find external reasons for the problems, such as something in the past, rather than facing up to the reality that after two and one-half years in Government the resource commodity economy in western Canada is in a serious slump and has been decoupled from the economic growth in the rest
May 21, 1987

of Canada. They have failed to realize that a solution to these problems requires an effective and imaginative response.
We hear the same refrain, that the NEP is at fault, each time there is a downturn in the oil industry. Those Conservative Members express the school yard, juvenile addled pratter, "The devil made me do it". They are not prepared to accept their responsibility as a Government and come to grips with the real problem. They are trailing in the polls in western Canada because western Canadians are discerning and know when they are being given a con job. They know when the Government is not prepared to fulfil all those promises it had made.
Let us consider agriculture for a moment. There was an interesting article in The Western Producer, written by a very distinguished journalist whom I believe all Members would admit is someone with much integrity. Mr. Barry Wilson pointed out that when the Conservatives were trying to gain power in 1983-84 they said they would far surpass the record of the Liberals in developing the agriculture export field. They cancelled Canagrex because they said they had a better way to proceed.
As Mr. Wilson pointed out in his article in The Western Producer on May 7, agriculture exports are way down. He said:
-instead of an $11 billion increase in farm export values, government officials
now predict the value of exports in 1987 will be almost $1 billion below 1984
exports of close to $10 billion.


An Hon. Member:: It is the price of grain.


Lloyd Axworthy: Of course there is a problem in the international export market. Of course prices are down. However, what is the Government doing about it? The farm groups have been saying for months that they need a substantial cash flow in order to make up the difference and enable them to stay on the farm. Mr. Mulroney goes out and says-


Arnold John Malone: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sorry, the Prime Minister. I think I can be excused if at times the gentleman who occupies the post of Prime Minister is not seen that way in my eyes or in the eyes of most Canadians, because he does not adequately fulfil that responsibility.
As an example of the pleas coming from people in Alberta, let me refer to a group from the Lethbridge area, comprised of municipal councillors, reeves, members of the farm review boards and members of agricultural organizations. They came to Ottawa to try to persuade the Government to respond. They received a five-minute meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and that was the extent of his commitment to those farmers representing 20,000 farmers in that area. They said they needed a clear commitment of a deficiency payment so that they could tell their bankers they were able to stay on the land. They said they needed some restructuring of the farm debt credit problem. What did they receive? They received a visit from the Prime Minister. One of those people gave me a
Supply
message to bring back to the House of Commons. Don't send the Prime Minister, send cash instead.
It is not a matter of deciding who is to blame. We know that the commodity industry, the backbone of the western Canadian way of life, is bleeding heavily. If that is allowed to continue, if the economic base of western Canada shrinks further, then it will never recover. The Government has the responsibility of responding to that problem. It is not someone else's responsibility. There is not another Government around. There will be in about two years but right now the problem is-


Mr. Scowen:: Dream away.


Lloyd Axworthy: Anyone who is standing at 23 per cent in the polls has nightmares, not dreams. I am sorry, the governing Party of Canada is now at 26 per cent and running third in western Canada. That is a great accomplishment.
I again plead with the Government to look at the facts and the consequences. It is not a matter of statistics or just saying the industry is in trouble. Look at what is beginning to happen. We had an announcement this week from the Alberta Minister of Health that as a result of the downturn the province is going to cut back on medicare payments. What is it that the province will not pay for anymore? It is podiatry treatment. Who uses podiatrists? Old people. That enlightened Conservative Government of Alberta says it is no longer going to provide support for the medical treatment of older people who have problems with their feet. What does the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) say? He has been given the responsibility for health in this country by legislative mandate. He says that is okay; why not? We have to look at that in human terms. We have older people who no longer feel they have the right to get proper medical treatment. Why? Because of the abdication of responsibility by various levels of Government.
Let us look at another issue which was not included in the Hon. Member's resolution, but which should have been and I understand why it was not. The NDP position is to abolish the Senate. They do not believe in it. The fact is that a majority of westerners, I would say, have come to the conclusion that the only way they will ultimately get the kind of attention they deserve and a fair deal in Confederation is through Senate reform. Senate reform has been endorsed by the Conservative Government of Alberta, by my Party, and a wide variety of groups. The federal Conservatives are conspicuous by their absence from that coalition but, nevertheless, it is now clear that the thrust towards Senate reform may be in jeopardy.
The ability to bring about the kind of constitutional amendment necessary may have been put in peril. The fact is that the Government has decided to pass control of a federal institution to the provincial Premiers. That will substantially alter the nature of this federation. It means that a federal

May 21, 1987
Supply
institution reflecting the interests and concerns of the regions has been put in jeopardy.
It is striking that the kind of questions raised on that issue by my Leader and others have not been raised by Conservative Members from the west. You would think they would want to make sure that we have a proper opportunity to examine constitutional proposals in this House, that we have a committee determine whether the proposals ensure that we have meaningful Senate reform.
Once again I echo the words of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway who said that this is a story of the silent 20-perhaps the silent 40. When the time comes to fulfil their responsibility to their constituents to raise issues from a national perspective they are found silent and wanting. Instead they play with trifles. They find all kinds of extraneous issues with no relevance to the real meaning of what is happening in western Canada today.
We have heard now for six or seven months, I suppose, that one day the great economic diversification plan for the west will be revealed. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) put a group of 20 civil servants in the abandoned science building in Winnipeg, which the Government closed down even though it would have given Canada the most up-to-date robotics research centre in the world, to develop a diversification program.
There is a certain irony there that even Tory Members might be able to understand. The Government was going to come up with this grand blueprint. However, it will not have any money attached to it. It will be a grand balloon. I suppose the Government is going to do what it did with free trade, put out a fancy colour pamphlet and put it in the shopping centres along with The National Inquirer and People magazine to tell everyone what a wonderful blueprint it has for delivering the goods. Except there will be nothing meaningful in it.
I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) sitting there in all his glory. The unemployment rate in Alberta has gone up 3 per cent or 4 per cent since the Government was elected, but the amount of job-creation funds has not changed. The amount of money going to training programs has been cut back. That is the Government's response. There is effective Government for you! There you really see a Government that knows what it is doing! The Government likes to stand logic on its head.


Arnold John Malone: When you point your finger at-


Lloyd Axworthy: Unfortunately the Hon. Member cannot point a finger at his head because it is too pointed. Every time he does so he misses.
The real issue-


Mr. Bouchard:: Everyone remembers when you were the Minister!


Lloyd Axworthy: They do remember. As someone said when the Government brought in its refugee program, I was the last Minister to have control over my own department.


Benoît Bouchard: We had the worst rate in Canada with you.


Lloyd Axworthy: The last one to have control over his department. Now we simply have a cipher who does not know what he is doing, but brings in the worst refugee program in the western world. He hardly should be shouting from his seat about grand accomplishments.
Let us talk about what the ultimate result of this should be. It is very clear that there must be announcements dealing with the agricultural crisis. We do not want Ministers responsible for trade and the Wheat Board holding press conferences to say how they will solve the long-term problem. Keynes once said that in the long term we will all be dead. The fact of the matter is that the problem exists in this crop year. It is necessary to have an announcement on deficiency payments now in order for farmers to plan their crop year.
There must be something more than a Kierans-type review on oil and gas policy and that will be addressed by my colleague, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), later in this debate.
Most important, there must be a real economic development plan for the west which is worked out with westerners rather than in an isolated think-tank of civil servants which the Deputy Prime Minister has put together.
Finally, the ultimate test for the people of Alberta and those of us on this side of the House will be when the Government is prepared to say that it is committed to true Senate reform which will recognize the necessity for the regions to be equally represented on the national level, not from provincial Governments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. I think the Member is right that the Conservatives are fighting yesterday's battles. We have to fight today's battles in the west. The Government could offer aid to the Husky up-grader. It could plan the next tar sands development with private or public companies or a combination. The Government has all these tools. It could aid small oil companies with a price regime which would help them. It could ship Alberta coal, which is cleaner burning, to Ontario.
The federal Government as well as the Alberta provincial Government could stop squeezing the domestic demand in Alberta. We learned from British Columbia that when restraint is put on when the economy is going down it only accelerates the worsening of the economy. Therefore, there are lots of things that could be done.
Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta, and the late Grant Notley, former Leader of the Opposition there, spoke about using Alberta capital and economic diversification. I
May 21, 1987

believe that the key for western Canada in the long run has to be in economic diversification.
Does the Member not think that perhaps the focus on Senate reform, institutional reform, will take away from the economic reforms which are needed in western Canada? How does he see the two relating? Does he not think perhaps that the emphasis should be on economic reform, economic diversification, using the tools which we presently have rather than focusing on institutional reform of the Senate?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not see economic reform and political reform as being contradictory. In fact, I see them as integral and connected parts of the same plan. The federal Government is a major reason for development in western Canada, and it has been historically from the time of the first railroads to the development of infrastructure programs, including highways, airports and others.
We are now into a new generation of reform which requires the federal Government to invest in science centres and research and development. It must provide the opportunity for western Canadians to become part of a new kind of economy based upon electronics, science, and various forms of high technology fields.
Unfortunately we in western Canada do not have the corporations to do that for us, aside from some of the big oil giants. Most of the economic base in western Canada is concentrated in small and medium-sized businesses. They do not have the resource capacity to have huge research laboratories. We do not have huge General Electric or General Motors plants in the west. Therefore, public sector investment has always provided that kind of support.
In order to make that happen there must be a clear willingness and ability by the federal Government to make those investments, to ensure that there is an equal distribution of procurement and investment in the scientific and technological facilities. There must be political will here in Ottawa to ensure that that takes place. I do not think that will exists, regardless of which Party is in power. We have one House comprised of seats based upon population. With the geography we have in Canada it is not always possible to ensure that there is equity in that system. That is why every other federal system has an effective second Chamber to ensure that there is balance in the distributional role of the federal Government.
I see the two as being very closely tied, as do most westerners. The matter was brought to a head with the CF-18 decision. There is no doubt that that had incredible importance in western eyes because they saw it as an unfair political decision against the proper and rational reasons why that major facility should have come west. They see it that way and they realize that those kinds of decisions are less likely to be taken if there is a second Chamber with elected and more equal representation to ensure that the political balance wheel is not out of whack.
We know that Senate reform is a long-term solution but it is symbolically very important for westerners to see that the rest
Supply
of Canada is prepared to respond to what they see as a major system of disadvantage at this time. We know that psychology and symbolism are very important in politics. I do not think any Member of this House wants to see the emergence of a western separatist party. We want to argue these issues out among national parties, but if the national parties are seen not to care over a period of time about one region of the country, that will provide the stimulus for a separatist movement to emerge. It would be tragic if that took place in this country. That is why I believe that an economic reform plan and a political reform plan must go hand in hand.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Member read the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press on the Meech Lake Accord and what it does to the prospects of an elected equal Senate. Does he subscribe to that editorial? Would he give us his thoughts on what he thinks the Meech Lake Accord does to the prospect of an elected Senate?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, rather than referring to the editorial in the Free Press, which I do not normally treat as a source of my opinion, I refer the Hon. Member to the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in this House during the debate. He said that when the exact language is put forward and we, hopefully, have the opportunity to have an active examination of it in this House, we will want to know whether the proposed amending formula, which in a sense provides for a unanimity principle, will provide a major blockade to the achievement of Senate reform.
I also raised the question of whether the proposal that the provincial Governments nominate Senate appointees may also provide a certain blockage. Once provincial Governments get used to the idea of having their own nominees it is less likely that they will be inspired by Senate reform based upon election.
Therefore, those items in the Accord must be very carefully examined. I want people who understand constitutional implications to appear before a committee of this House to give their expert opinion on whether the outcome will be as the Free Press predicts, that we would not have Senate reform if it proceeds. It is certainly a question which is in the mind of our caucus.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I guess my initial reaction to reading this motion is one of amazement. I am absolutely amazed at the gall, the nerve of the socialist party, with the support of the Liberals, apparently, from the last speech, to make that kind of motion. Where have those Members been if they do not realize that whatever problems exist are the result of the policies and programs of the previous Government supported by the socialist party?
I have been around here for a while. I remember the summer of 1973 very well when David Lewis who was propping up the Trudeau minority Government said, "You had

May 21, 1987
Supply
better do something about inflation or I won't be able to support you anymore". On September 8, 1973, Mr. Trudeau gave a speech. He did something about inflation all right, he put a price freeze on oil and wheat. That is what he did. He said, "We are going to fight inflation by freezing the price of products produced in the west", and David Lewis said, "That's good enough for me".
Then we had the energy wars, the price freeze and the export tax, where the Government said, "Don't worry, we are going to return it to the producers who own it". Then the Government said, "Well, we are only going to return half'. Then it said, "We are not going to return any of it at all".
I remember the famous Budget of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), then Minister of Finance, on May 8, 1974. The former Minister said, "By cracky, we are going to put those westerners in their place, those oil tycoons", and he made royalties non-tax deductible and the oil industry came to a grinding and screeching halt. I remember the applause from David Lewis and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I remember that very well.
Then there was a little sanity for a period when Donald Macdonald took over as Minister of Energy. We had a little sanity for a few years and some growth. Then we had Allan MacEachen and Marc Lalonde who brought in that great new piece of national policy, the National Energy Program, which confiscated private resources by way of the back-in, which introduced the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the petroleum compensation charge, the special compensation charge, the Canadian ownership charge and the export tax, ad nauseam.
Where were the socialists? They said, "Good for you. We have to put those multinationals in their place. We have to put a stop to this abuse". They brought the west to its knees. An economist at the University of Calgary estimated that over the period from 1974 to 1984, $50 billion was drained out of the western economy as a result of policies which the socialist party supported every step of the way. 1 was here and heard those debates.
We were elected on a promise made to the whole country that we would remove the National Energy Program and we would restore world prices, and we did. The best year ever was 1985. Yes, world oil prices collapsed in 1986, but we acted. We accelerated the removal of the rest of the PGRT and introduced the small producers program.
What about the people who work in that industry? What do they have to say about it, the people who know? How about the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, which is in the service sector, and members were just talking about its difficulty? What does it have to say? In a letter dated March 31, 1987, it states:
The announcement by the Hon. Marcel Masse on March 25, 1987, proved that
the Government of Canada was aware of industry's plight and was prepared to
act very decisively to create a program of assistance through renewed investor
interest.
The people who know say we have done the right thing and applaud us. The socialists and the Liberals, who do not have a clue about what is going on out there, say we have not done anything. How about SEPAC, the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada? In a letter of March 27, 1987, it states:
Mr. Masse's program meets or exceeds all of SEPAC requirements. More
importantly however, the package reintroduces fairness and equality into our
system.
That is what people who know are saying about the programs we have introduced. Compare that to the Grit-socialist record. People out there have not forgotten. That is why in Alberta we talk about polls but the polls the NDP talk about do not exist in Alberta because Albertans know that this Government has acted.
The point was made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that we should not look at the past but to the future. He asks us what we are today. Let us look at today. 1 was born and raised in Alberta and for as long as I can remember, and according to my teachers and parents for as long as the province has existed, there have been three burning issues in the west; there have been three major complaints about what it was getting out of Confederation. The first is resource policy, because when the provinces were formed they were not given the constitutional responsibility for resources. That only came in 1935 as a result of a Conservative Government. The energy policies, as we know from the NEP and the policies which preceded it-that David Lewis insisted on-still enabled the federal Government to abuse the resources of western Canada when it so chose and it chose to do it during that period, with the support of the socialists.
There are the other two issues of particular relevance today. For as long as anyone in the west can remember the complaint has been about the trade situation in the country, that everything the west produced had to be sold at world prices and everything we bought had to be at higher than world prices from behind tariff protected laws. The demand for fairness in that trade situation vis-a-vis the rest of the world has been a constant demand in the west since the provinces were formed in 1908. We are acting on that. This Government is acting through these free trade negotiations. We are addressing an historical Albertan complaint, but where do the socialists and the Liberals stand on this historic Albertan complaint? They stand on the other side, all the while claiming they are concerned about the west, and Alberta in particular. What hypocrisy.
There is another issue which goes back to the formation of the province and has been there as a burning and frustrating concern to westerners, and that is transportation. The transportation system made it very difficult if not impossible for western industry to compete, because of the set of regulated rail rates and so on. Everything was f.o.b. Alberta if we were exporting and f.o.b. Toronto if we were purchasing. The rates made it impossible to compete. That is being addressed with Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 by this Government. Where is the
May 21, 1987

socialist party on this issue? It is opposed. It is with the CPR, for crying out loud.
This historical 80-year old issue for western Canada is being addressed by the Government and the socialists are opposed, all the while claiming they are interested in the west. What absolute utter hypocrisy. They do not have a clue what westerners want or what Albertans want. They do not have a clue about what is going on in Alberta today. Are they aware that 35,000 jobs were created in Alberta since the election? Are they aware that the unemployment rate was 12.1 per cent in September of 1984 and it is now 10 per cent? The unemployment rate in Alberta has dropped to 10 per cent. Total unemployment fell by 26,000 since September, 1984. Are they aware that the value of building permits in the first month of 1987 was up 29.3 per cent compared to the same period in 1986 and up 7.2 per cent compared to 1985 and up 12 per cent compared to 1984? The value of building permits is up. Are the socialists aware that housing starts in 1986 were up 5.5 per cent compared to 1985 and up 22.4 per cent compared to 1984 during the National Energy Program activity? Are they aware that last month there were more houses sold in Calgary than at any time in the history of that city, and that prices are rising?


Mr. Althouse:: They are all leaving.


Harvie Andre: Are they aware of that fact? Are they aware that retail sales in Alberta, on a per capita basis, are the highest in the country, higher than in Ontario? Are they aware of that fact?
Comparing 1986 to 1981, are they aware that there was a much smaller reduction in farm families in Alberta in 1986 than in any other province of the country? Comparing 1986 to 1981, there was a drop of .5 per cent in the number of farm families in Alberta in 1986. In Ontario, the figure was 11.8 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 15.1 per cent; in British Columbia, 14.7 per cent. There was a smaller reduction in farm families in Alberta than in any other province of the country in that period.
Are they aware of those facts? Hardly. Had they been aware of them, they would not have had the nerve to introduce this motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about the Conference Board?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, they simply have not a clue about what is going on in Alberta, or the rest of the country. I have read a statement of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to the effect that the jobs we have created have had no regional impact; that 94 per cent of the jobs created were in southern Ontario, around Toronto.


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely false.


Harvie Andre: That is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has said.
Supply


An Hon. Member:: NDP distortion.


Harvie Andre: If he had any clue about what was going on, he would realize that that is nonsense. In fact, something in the order of 40 per cent of the jobs created were located in Ontario, with 28 per cent being in the Province of Quebec and 23 per cent in the west. In fact, the distribution of new jobs equates approximately to the distribution of the population of the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and every spokesman for this Government, recognizes that in fact regional disparity in this country remains a problem. But, it is not helpful to have the dauphin, the heir apparent, the guy who is buying the Gucci shop in anticipation of his move to 24 Sussex, going around making these absolutely false statements.
And talking about false statements, I heard the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) state in his speech that if Amoco takes over Dome, there will be a drop in Canadian ownership of the oil and gas sector to 40 per cent. Again, I urge the Hon. Member to learn some facts before making statements in the House.


An Hon. Member:: The NDP do not know facts.


Harvie Andre: In 1984, ownership of the oil and gas industry stood at 42.5 per cent Canadian, with control at 40.5 per cent. As of today, the ownership level is at 47 per cent, with control being at 48.4 per cent. In the event that the Amoco deal goes through, the ownership will be 43.7 per cent-still higher than in September, 1984; and the control will be 41.1 per cent, again higher than the level in 1984.
The statement by the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway that in fact we are reversing things somehow from that great wonderful period when we had the Liberals and the NDP in their coalition, is simply false. It is simply false, Mr. Speaker.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The notion of a coalition isn't exactly true either.


Harvie Andre: What the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway says is simply not the situation at all.
Let us look at what this Government has done for western Canada. We have had all of these false statements from the Opposition as to what the situation is today-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We are simply quoting the figures of the Conference Board of Canada.


Harvie Andre: The Conference Board is trying to predict the future.
We have had all of these false statements about what the situation is today, and how we got to that situation. The explanations given by both opposition Parties were false and misleading. Let us have a look at what in fact this Government has done. Let us look first at the energy sector, in terms of over-all figures.

May 21, 1987
Supply
In 1983, the federal Government collected directly by way of taxes from the oil and gas industry, primarily located in Alberta, $4.7 billion. That was in direct taxes. Additional billions were lost as a result of the paying of less than world price. But directly by way of taxes there was an extraction from that part of the country of $4.7 billion. In 1986, that was down to about $400 million, or a reduction of approximately $4.3 billion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Where did all the money go?


Harvie Andre: That money is staying in Alberta, producing, among other things, the record housing sales that are now being experienced. It accounts for the high level of retail sales in Alberta, a level higher than anywhere in Canada. House sales in Alberta last month were the highest in the history of that province.
Let us look at the agriculture sector. In 1983, federal contributions to farmers amounted to some $300 million. In 1987, it is estimated that federal contributions will be $2.5 billion, an increase of roughly seven to eight times the 1983 level.
How can anyone in their right mind, Mr. Speaker, say that under the Liberal-NDP coalition, the west was doing well; that the west was getting favoured treatment from Ottawa, and it is only under the Tories that the west is being abused?
These are the same Tories who have raised the farm support from $300 million to $2.5 billion; these are the same Tories who cut back on taxes from the oil and gas sector from $4.6 billion to $400 million.
The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I will have time to go through the entire list.
Western Grain Stabilization Act payments are estimated to be $859 million this year, and last year amounted to $522 million. We had crop assistance payments of $150 million and $60 million in respect of emergencies and disasters. We also have the new grain deals with the U.S.S.R, Brazil, and Egypt.
Just this week we have had evidence from the OECD of the success that this Government has achieved in respect of the problems of western Canada. For the first time the OECD is looking at agriculture subsidies, and the rest of the world recognizes that this examination by the OECD flows from a Canadian initiative. It was the Prime Minister of this country who raised this issue at the Tokyo Summit; it was the Prime Minister of this country who instructed his Ministers to ensure that the question of agricultural subsidies be placed on the agenda of the GATT meetings.
It is under this Government that these long-standing problems, problems which had been left to fester, are finally being addressed. The members of the Opposition know in their souls that this is happening. Under the previous Government, it would have cost $11 a tonne to ship grain, in comparison to a cost last year of $6 a tonne.
The list of programs we have put in place is of such length it is difficult to know where to start. The establishment of farm debt review panels is but one example.
The members of the Opposition talk about agricultural debt. Yes, indeed, there is a lot of debt; and yes, indeed, the degree of debt has been a problem for agriculture across the country. As is apparent from the statistics, a lot of farmers have gone out of business all around the country as a result of farm debt and interest rates, but less so in Alberta than in the other province of the country. We have done something about this problem. Interest rates are down, and the consequent savings to the farmers are enormous.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway notes the high percentage of debt in his motion. Given the high percentage of debt, he ought to recognize the tremendous benefit accruing to debt holders as a result of the reduction in interest rates.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I suppose the reduction in grain prices is a big help, too.


An Hon. Member:: There he is, the Saskatchewan Rhodes Scholar.


Harvie Andre: The socialist opposite says it is the fault of the Mulroney Government that grain prices have gone down.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No. You were talking about what has gone down. You put interest rates on an open-market basis, and they went down. So did grain prices. Open market!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand they say we do nothing; on the other hand, they attribute to Prime Minister Mulroney the incredible power to control the world economy in grain.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You are taking the credit for the fall in interest rates, a world situation.


Harvie Andre: We will take responsibility for all of our actions, for all of those matters over which we have control, and we will put our record of performance in terms of helping those hurt by events beyond our control against that of any other Government or Party.
If the Hon. Member were concerned about farmers, he would have been supporting free trade and amendments to the Transport Act. If he were concerned about the west, he would have supported those issues.
We refuse to take responsibility for rain on weekends or for the policies of the EEC, because we have no control over those policies.
Albertans know very well that the Government has been very responsive. Yes, indeed, things have been tough with the
May 21, 1987

collapse in grain prices. I should mention parenthetically that the livestock industry is doing fairly well these days, and it is an important part of Alberta agriculture. Yes, indeed, the oil industry is hurting as a result of the collapse in oil prices in 1986. However, the people in the industry know that we have done as well as could be done. If we compare the damage in Calgary with the damage in Houston, for example, we see that in fact we have actually done considerably better, relatively speaking, because of what the Government has done.
If we look at the facts on farm incomes, individual incomes, jobs, and so on in terms of Alberta, we have actually not done bad as a result of the actions of the Government, given the circumstances. If the opposition Parties would be less obstructive and would co-operate in terms of free trade, transportation, and energy policies, we could restore to the west and provide for the west the kind of future which the people and resources out there are capable of producing. If it is not with the co-operation of the Opposition, then it will be in spite of the opposition of the Opposition, because we are determined to do it.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister. However, by way of preface I should like to thank him for his excellent remarks in respect of the motion. As a Saskatchewanian I have a particular interest in what the Opposition was saying about western Canada.
The thrust of my question to the Minister is, can the NDP, in suggesting this motion, be trusted in Alberta and trusted in western Canada?
As a western Canadian one sees three bizarre contradictions among many others in NDP policy. Those of us in the west who have historically been discriminated against by tariff barriers and who want free trade as an economic salvation to western Canada find ourselves blocked by the NDP and its big labour partners in Oshawa, those unions and people who wish to hold western Canada back.
If we look at foreign investment and what it has done for the oil patch in Alberta and in Saskatchewan and the thousands of jobs it has brought, there again the NDP tries to fight jobs and development for western Canada.
A point to those of us who are concerned with the farm economy is that when we have difficulty with the grain handlers we hear the NDP bleating and whining. We have to point out that there are seats on the NDP executive which are occupied by the Canadian Labour Congress. It becomes very difficult to deal with the NDP inconsistencies in labour policy when we look at the grain handlers who have often jeopardized the very life-blood of the Saskatchewan economy.
Given those three bizarre contradictions, my question to the Hon. Minister is, who would trust the NDP in western Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, only the most gullible. The Hon. Member is absolutely right.
Supply
I have often wondered how the Leader of the New Democratic Party manages to straddle the policy issue when he applauds the investment of foreign-owned General Motors in Oshawa and says that it is good for Canada, that it means jobs, but when it comes to investment by a foreign company in the oil industry in Alberta he says that it is terrible for Canada. Why is it that a job with a foreign-owned company in Oshawa is in the national interest, but a job with a foreign-owned oil company in Calgary is somehow not in the national interest? I wonder if some day the socialists could explain that to me in a way that I can tell an employee in Calgary that the Leader of the NDP has a clear view of the country. I would like to be able to do that some day.
As the Hon. Member said, how does one base trust? How does one decide whether to trust? We can do so on one's past performance and one's performance today, but we take a risk on the future.
Referring to their past performance, we know that during the period from 1972 to 1974 when the energy war started David Lewis was there propping up Pierre Trudeau. David Lewis supported the then Minister of Finance who is now Leader of the Opposition in that disastrous Budget of May 8. We know all that. The history is there. We know their performance in the National Energy Program. We know what they did, how they sat by and in fact applauded for all kinds of "national noble reasons" while the west was having the boots put to it.
However, we know that today the west wants free trade and deregulated transportation to address historical problems which have been a bane to development in the west since the formation of the provinces out there. On these two vitally important issues to the west, we know where the NDP is-it is opposed, opposed and opposed. Perhaps it is because Shirley Carr told them to be. I do not know, because it does not make any sense. I do not see how anybody who has concern for the west can be opposed to those two initiatives.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Hon. Minister who comes from Calgary Centre. Bearing in mind that members of the NDP, putting on their mask and being great pretenders-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you intend to recognize any opposition Members or other party Members in this period.


John Kenneth Gormley: Are you questioning the Speaker?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I hope to, if time permits.


Arnold John Malone: I might say parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that you are a fine gentleman, but it is pretty hard to see people who do not stand up.

May 21, 1987
Supply
I want to ask the Hon. Minister about these great pretenders who pretend to defend Alberta and the west. I should like to refer to a direct quotation from their policy resolutions. The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that they stand by all of them and will not change their mind to court public opinion. How will the following resolution help the good City of Calgary and western Canada, "The phasing out of all oil exports to the United States and a ban on the export of current supply of natural gas"? What would that do to Calgary? What would that do to western Canada? What would that do to Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, obviously that would be an utter disaster to western Canada. Presumably it would make the people in Oshawa feel more comfortable to have the west remain a kind of sump or storage tank for oil and gas, so his constituents in Oshawa would never have to worry about supply.
The jobs of people who explore for oil, do the drilling, the geophysical work, the geological work, the pipeline work, and so on, are not real jobs! I mean, a real job is working on an assembly line in a foreign-owned automotive company! Those are not real jobs out there? They are supposed to find enough and keep it in a storage tank so that the people in Oshawa, apparently, will not have to worry about security in the future, but if people in Alberta are put out of work because of those policies, too bad! They will show their sincerity by introducing absurd motions, all the while adopting policies at their conventions which would make the statistics real, which would cause that loss of 50,000 jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) wishes to make a comment and ask a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment and a question. I must say that this performance is beneath the Hon. Minister. It is full of half-truths and hypocrisy. It pits one segment of the country against the other. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the Auto Pact which forced reinvestment. It is a disgusting performance.
If the Albertan people, as the Minister claims, know very well what the Government is doing, why did they reduce the Government's majority in the Pembina by-election from
35,000	to 232 votes? Why did they do that?


John Kenneth Gormley: Who did they elect?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why did they do that?


John Kenneth Gormley: Who did they elect? They elected a Tory.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is he calling the Conference Board misleading? The Conference Board said that economic activity in Alberta in the last year fell; that economic activity decreased by .07 per cent. Is the Minister disputing that fact?
I know the Minister loves the past, I guess he wishes he were in opposition, he loves it. He remembers that time, but we are dealing with the here and now, not yesterday. What is his position on the Husky upgrader in Lloydminster? What is the Minister going to do about that? What is the Minister's position on the Amoco takeover of Dome Petroleum?


Harvie Andre: Very quickly on the question of the facts, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed, the collapse in oil prices and the collapse in grain prices have had an effect. There is no denying that. But the question is, has the Government reacted to that? Has the Government introduced programs? Has the Government responded favourably and impressively?


John Kenneth Gormley: The answer is yes.


Harvie Andre: The answer is yes. The numbers are there. The facts are there. If the Hon. Member and his Party were being honest, they would recognize that. They apparently feel there is no partisan advantage in being honest.
As to the Amoco takeover of Dome, I am very pleased that there is bidding for Dome. This is very bullish news for the industry. Dome has a large land position, as the Hon. Member might know but probably does not. He might know that in the oil and gas industry most plays, drilling of wells and so on, are joint ventures. Many companies have joint venture arrangements with Dome, and that has effectively sterilized lands because Dome is in no position to participate and take up its share. If there were an active owner of Dome that could manage those properties, like an oil company, rather than doing what Dome has done in the last couple of years, of trying to survive, it would be very bullish news for the west-


Mr. Gagnon:: It would create jobs.


Harvie Andre: It would create thousands of jobs. The question which the New Democrats have to consider is whether they are willing to sacrifice those thousands of jobs that would be created through a successful takeover of Dome because of their concern over the foreign ownership provisions. That is the question. If we were to follow NDP policy and say no to this takeover, we would be putting in jeopardy thousands and thousands of jobs as well as many little companies in the service sector about which the Hon. Member expressed concern. That is what the Hon. Member has to bear in mind.
It is marvellous to sit in opposition in great sanctimony and to wax eloquent on these questions of foreign ownership, of Amoco and so on, and at the same time worry about jobs but not make the intellectually honest connection between the two. You cannot have it both ways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate. We have just learned graphically why the
May 21, 1987

Minister and other Conservatives from Alberta are now known as the pathetic Conservatives in western Canada.
I was born in Alberta. My mom and dad were born in Alberta. My grandparents lived in Alberta. I have lots of aunts, uncles, cousins and all kinds of relatives who live in Alberta, most of whom used to be supporters of the Conservative Party, provincially and federally. They are not any more, almost to a one, and for good reasons.
The speech just given demonstrates clearly why Albertans are sick and tired of the rhetoric and malarkey coming from that Minister and the Alberta Tories. They go around saying, "Socialist this, red scare that. The socialists would do this or they would do that or did that." The old stories of fright and fear mongering do not work among Albertans any more. Albertans are much more intelligent, much more understanding and caring about Alberta and western Canada than the Tory Members want to give them credit for. Albertans now place their support as third for Conservatives. They place Liberals higher in their esteem than they do the Tories and they put New Democrats at the top, and I think for good reason.


Arnold John Malone: In Alberta?


James Ross Fulton: Let me give an example of why Albertans are suspicious of where the Tories are coming from. Alberta has the lowest per capita acreage of parkland of any province in Canada. What are the Tory's response to that? They come to Cabinet and say "You should turn over the national parks to Alberta so that Alberta can have a parkland base". That is the kind of lack of vision that we have seen decade after decade after decade from the silent 20, as they are known in Alberta. What happens when one speaks out? What happened to the Member from Edmonton who spoke out? He got thrown out of caucus. But what happens to Tory Members who are involved in land deals or influence peddling or anything else? They get to stay in caucus. They get to hang around and continue to participate, but we know that if a western Tory tries to say the Government is not dealing with this or that bread and butter issue and speaks out, he gets bounced down the road.
Let me deal with the park issue for a moment because it is important to look at the silence of the Alberta Tories on issues related to the environment, on important national issues, such as parks. We have to understand that Albertans have a great love for the land, for the farmland, the foothills, for Jasper, Banff, for Wood Buffalo and other areas in the province. Why has there not been a single Alberta Tory Member talking about the national park system? Why have they not been a little more sensitive to this crazy idea of simply turning over the national parks so that a Don Getty and others can go around and crow saying, "Now we have all these marvellous provincial parks".
Why hasn't that Government with the Heritage Fund, and through other means, gone about acquiring some of the grasslands, acquiring part of the foothills, acquiring part of the Peace River, acquiring those areas of natural beauty so that
Supply
Albertans can have a sound provincial and regional economic base in terms of tourism? I suggest it is for a simple reason that Albertans have now finally recognized. Tories have managed to get elected and re-elected. They have said that the reds are coming, that there is a socialist scare, that the socialists will take over the oil patch. They are going to do this and that, quoting from policies, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. I do not stoop to that kind of stupidity, dragging out all Tory policies from the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s. That is the kind of low gutter politics which Tory MPs love to practice, going around telling half truths, saying, "Keep us in Government because if you had the New Democrats they would do this or that". As I said, Albertans are tired of the fear mongering. They have recognized that the silent 20 have become known in Alberta and in all of western Canada as the pathetic Conservatives.
Albertans have looked and they know what happened in Saskatchewan in the years of Tommy Douglas and Allan Blakeney. They know what good Government can bring at the provincial level. They saw what happened in British Columbia which brought in insurance policies and all kinds of other things that were good for individual ordinary Canadians in British Columbia. That is why the New Democrats are the Official Opposition in the Legislature of Alberta. After the next federal election they will hold a substantial majority of the seats in Alberta, I am quite convinced.


Arnold John Malone: That is what you said in the last election and the election before that.


James Ross Fulton: We hear them crowing over there. Why is it that the 20 government Members have never brought forward any days of debate on the Alberta economy? Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why is it that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has sneaked out once since the election and sneaked through Alberta to a couple of specially selected meetings and then sneaked back out of Alberta and into British Columbia? The Tory caucus says "Brian, don't come to the west. Put Maz up. Put Joe up. Don't bring the Prime Minister out here".


Mr. Jelinek:: That is not true.


James Ross Fulton: "We know that our popularity will simply go down, down, down. We know what kind of a Government you bring us".
Let me just use some of the figures that were used by the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). Statistics Canada pointed out that of the real new jobs created since the last Budget, there were almost zero in Alberta;
137,000	were created in all of Canada, with 132,000 of them in southern Ontario. Five thousand were speckled and scattered throughout the rest of Canada, with very few in the west.
The Minister says that they have created all these jobs in Alberta, but we are talking about net job creation. For every 10 about which the Minister was talking having been created in Alberta, nine were lost. That happened in almost every

May 21, 1987
Supply
single sector. The Minister pooh-poohs what the Conference Board of Canada has reported this week, that Alberta will have the worse performing provincial economy in Canada. Growth will be down for the second consecutive year, last year by .7 per cent and this year that is expected to almost double to a free fall of 1.1 per cent. The oil and gas sector has lost
25,000	direct and 25,000 indirect jobs in the last 12 months.
The Minister can go around Alberta and crow, saying this is marvellous, 50,000 jobs have disappeared, it is the bread and butter workers, the roughnecks, the people constructing pipelines and providing various kinds of technology to the oil patch, who know they are not taking home a pay cheque. They know they have the silent 20 here in Ottawa who are not addressing the problem on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.
Where is this famous western initiative fund? Where are all these famous proposals by these supposedly great Albertans who are standing up against the socialist hordes? The Conservative Government has the largest majority in Canadian history and it is unable to do anything in the west. It has no interest. Its only interest is in continuing to be re-elected.
Let us take another look at the oil patch. While upstream exploration and development revenues fell by 64 per cent in 1986 compared to 1985, revenues from the refining operations of the major integrated oil companies increased 110 per cent. The top five were all in the 90 per cent to 110 per cent range, with Texaco leading the way. At the same time the small Canadian-owned oil and gas companies that do most of the exploration were squeezed, in many cases squeezed out.
For decades Conservative MPs have returned to Ottawa time after time after time saying, "Give us a chance. When we are in Government we are going to do X, Z, and Y". I talk to Albertans all the time. I go to weddings and all kinds of things there. Most of my family still lives in Alberta. I am proud to say I was born an Albertan. As you probably know, I was born in Canmore, a small coal mining town just outside Banff, and many of my relatives still live there. I know what those people are saying.
In 1986 compared to 1985 the money spent on takeovers and acquisitions in the oil and gas industry rose by 60 per cent, from $2.2 billion to $3.5 billion. We know what is happening with respect to the Conservative investment policy. They love to sell out to the lowest bidder. If the Americans want to buy, come on in and buy all you want. Let the minnows take over the whales, let the whales take over the minnows. It is not creating any new jobs and in the future Canadians will reflect on this massive majority Conservative Government elected on September 4, 1984, and massively crushed in 1988, particularly in Alberta. Albertans are not fooled by the bombast of Ministers like the one who just spoke. Not anymore. You can drag all this socialist rhetoric out but Albertans drive to Saskatchewan. They know what Tommy Douglas and Allan Blakeney did. They know what good was done in British Columbia during the days of Dave Barrett.


Arnold John Malone: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: They know and put trust in what Ed Broadbent has to say. They know he has some vision of the west and how the country can really work. They know why medicare is good.
How many Conservatives in this House or in Alberta go out and tear up their medicare cards? We have the great socialist scare. All the Tories were saying this is terrible, the doctors will all leave and we will not be able to get our toe-nails clipped. Everything is going to collapse. B.C. brings in an insurance corporation and Alberta Tories say this is the end, free enterprise is finished. People who were buying car insurance, though, said this is not bad. Their insurance went from $800 a year to $400. They said these New Democrats seem to know what they are talking about. They are able to get insurance prices down and we like that. It is great to have free enterprisers running around saying you have to have free enterprise and pay twice as much for your car insurance or your fire insurance. Ordinary working Canadians are not fooled by that kind of claptrap and nonsense anymore.
Let us take a look at the farm economy. My colleague from Humboldt-Lake Centre has pointed out many times realistic ways of assisting farmers. We know about the U.S. Farm Bill. We know about the battles with the EEC. We know how you buy four bushels of wheat from them and you get one free. We know it is a serious problem for our farmers but we come forward with realistic solutions.
When it came to planting time we asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Prime Minister whether they were prepared to give some kind of basic understanding to our farmers so that there would be some kind of additional funding at the end of this year. Do the Tories respond? No, they talk about the money given for the last crop year. They never want to deal with the real concerns of farmers.
Let us look at what has happened to farmland in Alberta. The average land value has fallen 50 per cent over the last five years. What does that mean to a farmer trying to get a loan to buy new equipment or fertilizer, trying to decide what to plant and where to plant, what to leave fallow? It does not help them. Albertan farmers had $5 billion in loans outstanding at the end of last year, 23 per cent of Canada's outstanding farm debt. In 1986, 800 farm families had to abandon their farms. In 1983 the figure was only 300. The Minister gets up and says, "We great Conservatives have brought down interest rates and we should take all the credit for that". We know our interest rates are a reflection of the international market, particularly the U.S. If the Government wants to take credit for falling interest rates, then it has to take some responsibility for the international market for grain. You cannot just say that is the international market-place. They say they will take credit for the good things but when it is bad, no, no, that is the NDP or the U.S. or the world, or because the moon rose on the wrong side of the earth.
May 21, 1987

That kind of pathetic and dishonest political reasoning is why Albertans are getting tired of the kind of claptrap they are always getting from their Tory MPs, whether from Crowfoot or Calgary or anywhere else. They are tired of the Tories always dragging out an old NDP policy and saying this was just printed. This is Ed Broadbent's latest position. That is malarkey. That kind of dishonesty is beneath what I would expect of any Member of this House, and not just here in Ottawa but as they travel around Alberta. Albertans are not dumb and they are tired of being treated as mushrooms.
Realized net income from farming declined by almost 40 per cent last year in Alberta. Serious steps have to be taken by this Parliament to deal with the real concerns of Albertans. Some 600 families are added to the welfare rolls in Alberta every month. That gives you some kind of indicator of what is happening in that economy. Unemployment is at 10.5 per cent. For those between the ages of 17 and 25, it is 17.5 per cent. That is almost one young person in five. That is totally unacceptable.
A country as wealthy as Canada simply cannot allow that to go on when large corporations, the great friends of the Tories, the great financiers, owe more than $30 billion in unpaid taxes from last year. The deficit was only $29.5 billion. Why does the Government not collect from those corporations? Why is it always going after the farmers with special tax audit teams, or the small business people or individual workers in Alberta?
We know the silent 20 from Alberta have not been speaking up for their constituents. Sadly enough Alberta now has the highest annual suicide rate of any province at 16.9 per 100,000. That is a true reflection of an economy in crisis. There is crisis in the family, violence in the family. People have given up all hope of ever finding a place in society. Farm suicides in Alberta rose from 15.1 per 100,000 four years ago to 40.6. It tripled in three years.
Let me deal with an issue which has been before this House for a long time and has never been dealt with in any way effectively by the Government despite the fact the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has tried to get some publicity and take the lead. What about Alberta and B.C. coal? It is clean low-sulphur coal and can be shipped along those unused back-haul lines to Ontario.


Arnold John Malone: Why don't you pass Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 so we can do that?


James Ross Fulton: Why does the Government support buying dirty American coal to increase the amount of S02 and N02 emissions in Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, the Hon. Member will have four minutes left in debate plus 10 minutes for questions and comments when we return.
It being 1 p.m., 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.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it was with great pleasure that I learned today that Mr. Joe Stern, Chairman of the Refugee Advisory Committee for Canada, has been awarded the Raoul Wallenberg Award for Humanitarian Service. This is a very distinguished award for a very distinguished Canadian.
In my esteem there is no one in this country who deserves this honour more. As Chairman of the Refugee Advisory Committee, Mr. Stern has brought judgment, wit and, above all, compassion to one of the most difficult tasks performed by any public servant in Canada. He is responsible for deciding the fate of the homeless of this world. In that role he has represented Canada with understanding and care that know no equal.
At a time when the prevailing view seems to be to close our doors and get tough with refugees, Mr. Stern has provided the opposite example. He cares deeply about people and has won the admiration of all those who work in the refugee field.
There is a saying from the Talmud, "He who saves one life saves the world". Joe Stern is a living example of that philosophy. I hope he will be in a position to continue his service to refugees and to Canada in the years to come. I pay tribute to him today for a remarkable achievement by a very worthy person.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an event organized by the Department of Supply and Services that will take place in the beautiful riding of Quebec-Est at the Centre Monseigneur-Marcoux on Friday, May 29. I am referring to an information session for suppliers in the Quebec City area which will concentrate on the anticipated requirements of various departments for goods and services and on purchase procedures.

May 21, 1987
I would like to point out that more than 450 businesses have already said they will attend, and I also would like to say that those who are interested may be registered locally with the federal Government's central file.
As the Member for Quebec Est, I am anxious to make suppliers, both in my riding and Quebec City aware of federal purchasing requirements. My Government appreciates regional input, and the department's visit cannot be other than beneficial to the business community. The more the Government buys in our region, the more we have to produce and the more jobs we will create and preserve. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree this is an excellent initiative.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. John Buchanan, is going to refuse the invitation of the Special Committee on Acid Rain to appear before it to explain why Nova Scotia is the only province of those which were committed to entering into an acid rain abatement agreement with the federal Government which has yet to do so.
We should ail realize that the fact that Nova Scotia has not yet come to an agreement with the federal Government is a blight upon the Canadian record. We want to be able to say to Americans, whom we want to act on acid rain, that Canada has its federal-provincial act together with respect to acid rain. Nova Scotia holding out in the way that it is is jeopardizing the Canadian position in this regard.
The committee only wanted Premier Buchanan, if he has justifiable reasons for holding out, to explain those reasons to the committee. His colleague, the Premier of New Brunswick, did that and I do not think it did him any harm. I think Premier Buchanan should reconsider his refusal and come before the Special Committee on Acid Rain on behalf of Nova Scotia.



PRESENCE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN NORTHERN FISH AND ARCTIC SEA MAMMALS

Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the distribution of chemical residues is a world-wide problem.
Recently a Yellowknife conference was told of the presence of organochlorine compounds and alarmingly high concentrations of toxaphene, a now banned chemical formerly used in Texas cotton fields, found in fish livers from the lower Mackenzie River.
In addition, PCBs, DDT and other harmful substances have been discovered in the fatty tissues of sea mammals in the Arctic Ocean which, of course, is a source of food for the local inhabitants. Although the levels are generally lower than those considered to be dangerous to human life, these problems cannot be ignored. The Departments of Health and Welfare, Fisheries and Oceans, and the Environment, are to be complimented on their work to date and urged to continue with yet more diligence so that dangers to health might be averted.



THE MEDIA


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Press story today regarding my recent visit to Hungary, Poland, and East Germany is not a fair and accurate reflection of my views of these eastern bloc countries.
The story says that, in my view, support for the trade union Solidarity is mainly from "Polish yuppies". This is simply not accurate.
In fact, I found that while support for Solidarity appears to have diminished since martial law was lifted in December, 1982, the movement continues to have widespread support in Poland in spite of the fact that it is outlawed.
The article erroneously leaves a negative impression of my views of Solidarity. While some people suggested Solidarity was not as relevant as it was in the past, in my view it has been and will continue to be the driving force behind the democratization and economic reform of Poland. Solidarity epitomizes the struggle of the Polish people for freedom and the recognition of human rights.
I have the greatest admiration and respect for Polish people and I am pleased with the direction in which the Polish Government is moving.
In this respect, I support the position that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has taken, that even though the Government of Poland is more liberal than one might expect, the Government of Canada still has an important role to play in encouraging greater economic and political freedom.
May 21, 1987



THE ECONOMY


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta economy has long been dependent upon its natural resources as the major source of income. As a result, Alberta is vulnerable to shifts in world resource or commodity prices. As we are all aware, today the agriculture and oil industries are suffering.
However, our Government has been sensitive to the needs of Albertans. We dismantled the National Energy Program and eventually the PGRT. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) recently announced a major cash incentive program that will substantially boost employment, investment and activity in the oil and gas industry.
This program will provide approximately $350 million a year in direct assistance to the industry. The Canadian Government will provide cash incentives of up to 33.33 per cent of exploration and development expenses in Canada, up to a maximum of $10 million in spending per company each year.
In agriculture, we have made support of western farmers a priority. This year alone, they will receive direct federal assistance worth over $2.5 billion, up from $2.2 billion in 1986. Alberta has been and will continue to receive a major portion of government agricultural assistance.
I am proud to be part of a Government that not only listens to the needs of Albertans, but is actually doing something about answering those needs.



MINES AND MINING


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, at this time 500 employees of the Ruttan Mine at Leaf Rapids, Manitoba, face the prospect of losing their jobs by September. If the mine closes at that time, the 1,800 residents of the northern community face the prospect of having to leave their homes, and their town.
The loss of the mine will deal a major blow to northern Manitoba's mining industry, which has had to exist precariously for several years in the face of slumping world prices for base metals. The loss of Leaf Rapids would force the relocation of 1,800 people and would adversely affect northern Manitoba's economy.
Whether one looks at the human cost or simply the economic consequences, the closure of the mine would be a tragedy for all.
The future of the mine and of the town itself depends on the successful negotiation of the sale of Ruttan to Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company.
I call upon the federal Government to co-operate fully with the Province of Manitoba in considering any request for assistance, and to do anything it possibly can to ensure that Leaf Rapids has a future.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP in Quebec disagrees with his national leader.
Now that the 10 Premiers of Canada's 10 provinces and this Government have reached a constitutional accord, the NDP is still wondering about Canada's identity.
It is hard to imagine a member of the NDP in Quebec automatically becoming a member of the national party, because an NDP member who lives in Quebec does not seem to see Canada in the same way as a member who lives elsewhere in Canada.
This attitude is typical of all members of this Party and of all the NDP Members in this House. Not one of these comrades has taken a clear and unambiguous stand on the Constitution, on national defence or on the economy.
This bunch of radicals consists of a group of extremists: comrades, communists and socialists.
The only thing they have in common, Mr. Speaker, and this includes their provincial Leader in Quebec and their national leader, is that they are all prepared to prostitute themselves to take power.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, first it was the members of the Conservative caucus who wanted to call out the army to deliver the mail. Then it was the President of Canada Post who said: Strike or no strike, we will deliver the mail. Now the Minister responsible for Canada Post is supporting these confrontation tactics. The Conservative Government is so anxious to follow Uncle Reagan's example that it is doing everything it can to have a postal strike, so it can lay off 60,000 postal workers.
Instead of being concerned about restoring to Canadians the postal services they have cut and about the fact that they are still depriving Canadians of these essential services, they are fanning the flames so there will be a postal strike in Canada. They should stop making irresponsible statements and concentrate on providing services.

May 21, 1987



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Mir. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, Canada's initiative to host a meeting of the Cairns Group of Agricultural Exporters reflects the lead role the Government is taking in seeking solutions to the serious agricultural trade situation facing the world today. As well, bilateral negotiations between Canada and the United States are important to Canadian agriculture if we are to secure U.S. markets and eliminate trade barriers.
As an Albertan and a producer of grain and livestock, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is essential to the long-term viability of the red meat industry that western Canada have access to the markets in the Pacific northwest and California. Because of distance, changing markets and transportation costs, the flow of products is shifting in western Canada markets to the south. Canadian livestock producers have proven they can compete and in fact have a balance of trade in livestock and meat products in our favour.
Canada is a trading nation, in fact one of the world's great traders. We export more per capita than any of the world's major industrialized nations. The United States is our most important trading partner. Our trading relationship provides growing economic opportunities and work for millions of people on both sides of the border.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled two years ago that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every person in Canada who claims to be a refugee from persecution in his homeland must have an oral hearing, that is, he must be present to have his credibility and facts judged by those who will decide his fate. However, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) keeps declaring publicly that every claimant will be heard and seen by a refugee board member at the port of entry and will thereby receive his oral hearing as guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
That is not true according to the Minister's Bill C-55. For example, a claimant who comes from a so-called non-refugee producing country will never be allowed to tell his story to the board member. Again, a claimant who passed through a so-called safe country will never be allowed to state his claim to the board member.
The Minister's statements in public are plainly contradicted by the words of Bill C-55. His assurance that everyone will
have an oral hearing as guaranteed by the Supreme Court is false. I call upon the Minister to withdraw Bill C-55 and bring forward a new Bill which obeys Canada's Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



ACID RAIN


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 19, the Special Committee on Acid Rain went to Rouyn-Noranda to meet municipal authorities, the Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Council for Economic Development, the Environment Committee and the regional UPA. These groups made the committee aware of an environmental problem that is specific to Abitibi-Temiscamingue, namely the serious deterioration of our forests, lakes and land, as well as the fact that our maple trees are dying and acid rain is having an impact on human health. These same groups asked the Special Committee on Acid Rain, which is to go to Washington in a few weeks, to put strong pressure on the American Government and urge it to adopt concrete measures to reduce the air pollution that is a major source of acid rain in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
The committee was very receptive to the various statements and promised to make the necessary representations.
1 would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Committee who agreed to go to Rouyn-Noranda and all the organizations who attended this meeting and who through their testimony are trying to improve the quality of life in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) made a comment about Hamilton which was not only derogatory but insulting to Hamiltonians.
The Hon. Member suggested that if one were to visit our fair city, one would have to wear a gas mask.
I find this remark offensive, and so do the people of Hamilton.
May 21, 1987

Hamilton is a beautiful city. In fact, there are several students here from Hamilton today who will attest to the fact that Hamilton is the centre of economic and cultural opportunity in one of Canada's most populous regions.
We Hamiltonians are proud of our city and of our accomplishments in the fields of arts and entertainment and sports. We are proud to bear the name "Steel City".
The Member's remark was not only unprofessional but insulting to one of Canada's finest cities.
On behalf of Hamiltonians and the Liberal Party, I would ask that the Hon. Member for Mississauga North apologize to the people of Hamilton.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on May 14, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), in a press release, stated that education and training are his important priorities for developing selfgovernment and economic self-reliance. Yet, in the name of self-government, his department is terminating a $125,000 grant for the B.C. Native Education Centre in Vancouver, which has an outstanding record.
This centre, Mr. Speaker, has been operating for 20 years, is native-run and operated, and not only helps native people to find a new life through education but has many cultural and high-tech training programs as well.
I would ask the Minister to confirm his commitment to Indian education and self-government by reinstating and increasing the federal grant to this important native-run education centre in Vancouver.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the outstanding efforts of a great Canadian, Rick Hansen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Tomorrow in Vancouver, as we all know, Rick completes his round-the-world odyssey. I am sure he was
Oral Questions
buoyed by the news this week that his Man in Motion tour surpassed its original goal of raising $10 million for spinal cord research, rehabilitation, and wheelchair sports.
I know that Rick's determination and education have served as a source of inspiration for all who met him during his 26,000 mile tour. He has shown the depths of human spirit and endurance to the citizens of 34 countries along his path.
Almost two years ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood in this place and wished Rick the best of luck as he embarked on his dream. Now it fills me with great happiness to be able to say: Welcome home, Rick. You have been a source of hope and pride to all Canadians. To you and Amanda go our appreciation, our love, and our best wishes for the most wonderful future, a future you both deserve.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister lost his cool yesterday in responding to my questions about unlimited American takeovers of Canadian industry, I was suspicious that perhaps something was wrong, and now I know that something was wrong.
Yesterday afternoon, after Question Period, the chief Canadian negotiator told reporters that President Reagan personally had asked the Prime Minister for unlimited access by American investment in Canadian companies and Canadian business.
The Prime Minister did not tell Parliament of that request. The Prime Minister did not tell Canadians of that request. What is worse, the Prime Minister did not say no to that request.
I ask him, therefore, why not? Why didn't he tell President Reagan that Canadians will never allow the United States to have a total unfettered right to buy up any Canadian business they want, at their will?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I didn't tell the President that because it was never raised, Mr. Speaker. Those words were never used-unlimited access, total unfettered rights. That is a falsehood.


John Napier Turner: I will not recite for the record what Mr. Reisman has said, as reported by a number of daily newspapers, but I will table the necessary documentation to back that up.

May 21, 1987
Oral Questions
The recourse the Prime Minister has may not be with Parliament, if that is so, but with his chief negotiator. We are entitled to have a response on whether or not the President raised that issue directly with him.


AMERICANS' DEMANDS-CANADIAN CULTURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in any case, the Prime Minister did not make the slightest show of strength to protect Canadian sovereignty. Since this Government came to power, it has approved takeovers proposed by the Americans without further ado. From their list it is pretty obvious the Americans want to have the right to buy our newspapers, our television stations, our radio stations and our publishing companies, so my question to the Prime Minister is: Why didn't he at least have the courage to say no to this incredible demand? Why doesn't the Prime Minister start protecting Canadian culture instead of just pretending to?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Leader of the Opposition is laughable and entirely false into the bargain. I would also like to say, in reply to his first suggestion, because in his supplementary he wondered whether the President had raised the question of investment with me: Yes, the answer is yes. Absolutely, but did the President use these terms:

-unlimited access, total and unfettered access, buying up Canada? The answer is an absolute no.


REPORTED DEMAND FOR WIDE OPEN INVESTMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reisman is quoted as saying "Ronald Reagan told Prime Minister Mr. Brian Mulroney that U.S. demands for wide open investment"-call it wide open investment, don't call it unfettered-"must be included in the talks". Then there is a direct quote supporting that statement.
Of course today we now have in the supermarkets of Canada 200,000 copies of this new book which should be called "SellOut Canada". It has been distributed across the country.
Why is it that Canadians have to endure a gutless Government? Why is it that the Prime Minister did not give the President a final and categorical no to the American request for unfettered, wide open access to any Canadian business they might want to buy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition is losing his cool, Mr. Speaker. Now there has been a change. Now it wasn't unlimited access, total and unfettered purchasing. Now it is wide open investment pursuant to trade related investment-


John Napier Turner: That is not what he said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which has always been the case. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, apart from making these preposterous statements that he knows full well are preposterous, could tell the House: If there is a request for foreign investment which creates jobs in Sydney, Nova Scotia, in North Bay, in Esterhazy, is he opposed to that foreign investment? Is he going to stand up and say that he is? Is he opposed to that investment in Oshawa, the largest single foreign investment that has taken place?
The statement was made, quite properly, that Canada now is open for business, but Canada is not for sale.
We are attracting foreign investment to create jobs. If the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to that, let him tell that to the people of Timmins, of Sydney, of North Bay, and of Esterhazy, because they are going to have some questions to ask him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENT CANADA REPORT-TAKEOVERS OF CANADIAN BUSINESSES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question as well for the Prime Minister. He has just said that the purpose of foreign investment, in his view, is the creation of jobs. If that is the case, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us why his own agency, Investment Canada, pointed out in its recent report that from June, 1985, to December, 1986, 94 per cent of a total of $22 billion invested in Canada went into acquisitions and takeovers of existing Canadian business. It did not go into new jobs or new business; 94 per cent of it went into acquisitions and takeovers. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, why are the Prime Minister and this Government considering further American proposals for wide open investment which will only result in much broader, more massive takeovers of Canadian business? That is the result of your investment policy, takeovers of Canadian business, not the creation of new jobs.


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, as the Prime Minister said, that in place of politics we have put Investment Canada which provides new opportunities and new jobs for Canadians. That is why our record since 1984 is so attractive not only for foreign investors but as well for most Canadians because it means economic growth in Canada. That is what the Government is looking for.


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I pose a question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. You have the record, by your own agencies-


An Hon. Member:: Address the Chair.
May 21, 1987


Lloyd Axworthy: -that 94 per cent of foreign investment coming to this country has resulted simply in taking over companies with existing Canadian jobs, not creating new work, not creating new enterprises but existing takeovers. That is why we want to know, when the Prime Minister met with the President and received a request for a broader interpretation of investment rules, why didn't the Prime Minister just say no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let us get
down to it, Mr. Speaker. When the question of investment is raised, is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry saying that when a request from an American or foreign company comes to invest $35 million in Brandon that the answer should be no?


Jacques Guilbault: A takeover of a Canadian company.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the question is for Versatile, a tremendous investment by Americans in western Canada, in Winnipeg, and in Manitoba, should the answer have been no? When the question is in regard to foreign investment in the smaller centres-


Lloyd Axworthy: You have not said no yet. You have approved every application. Why don't you reject them? What kind of a program is it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member is asking me should there have been a rejection. I ask him should we have turned down Versatile? Should we have turned down that investment in Manitoba?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Should we have turned down that investment in Saskatchewan?


An Hon. Member:: They fired the employees.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberals cannot have it both ways. You have to tell the people where you stand, both of you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are selling off this country.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Stop asking silly questions.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will keep asking questions until you guys are out of power.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are just as phoney as your speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are firing right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind Hon. Members that both yesterday and the day before, while Question Period was, of course, a model of decorum, not very many questions got asked. I would hope that Hon. Members who wish to exchange
Oral Questions
their views, other than through the Chair in this Chamber, would remember today that there are other Hon. Members waiting to ask questions properly which Ministers are prepared to answer.


An Hon. Member:: Properly.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that asks and demands of all Hon. Members a certain co-operation-one Hon. Member has just said properly. Of course, in this Chamber, all questions are asked and answered properly.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


GOVERNMENT'S MINERAL AND METAL POLICY-CANADIAN EQUITY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question on this same subject of free trade to the Prime Minister. I have here a document issued this week by the Government with respect to mineral and metal policy in Canada in which the Government states:
-the government has set aside the practice of seeking 50 per cent to 60 per cent Canadian equity in new non-fuel mineral resource projects.
Why has the Government given up this practice? Is this not simply another giveaway to the U.S. in return for nothing?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that measure has been in effect for well over a year as part of Investment Canada's regulations. It is an indication to the mining industry that we welcome foreign investment. Let me tell the Hon. Member that this country's mining industry is in no danger of being taken over by foreigners. It is between 60 per cent and 70 per cent Canadian-owned and operated.
When the mining industry came to us they said they had gone through very difficult times. They needed new equity and new investment. They did not need this kind of restrictive investment decision by the Government of Canada. We listened and acted.


Steven W. Langdon: So in fact it was a surrender with absolutely nothing in return.


PRIME MINISTER'S MOTIVES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, about this booklet with all the false points it tries to make, about this propaganda, why did the Prime Minister decide this time it was all right to publish it at the public's expense? Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we believe that publishing this booklet was entirely appropriate and will be useful in helping Canadians make an objective value judgment on this major national issue.

May 21, 1987
Oral Questions

I think it should be noted that I was in Oshawa when General Motors put $2 billion of foreign investment in Oshawa. I have been to Windsor, the other area held by the NDP, a tremendous area of prosperity and the lowest unemployment in Canada, and largely because of foreign investment. What we are getting now is the privileged and selfish view of the NDP that foreign investment is good for them but bad for Bathurst and Kelowna and other areas across Canada. You cannot have it both ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Shields:: Ask another one.


Steven W. Langdon: The Prime Minister has shown his complete ignorance of Canada and of Windsor by saying it has the lowest unemployment rate of any place in Canada. Anyone who wants to check will find that is simply not the case.


REPORTED OPPOSITION BY PROVINCES TO FREEDOM OF INVESTMENT BY UNITED STATES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Governments of both Ontario and Quebec have now expressed opposition to freedom of investment by the U.S. Will the Prime Minister now state clearly that his Government completely rejects the U.S. demand for a completely free investment policy in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend places in doubt the statement that there is the lowest unemployment rate in Canada in southern Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: In Windsor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Windsor is in southern Ontario. My hon. friend is following his Leader who said in a statement of May 8,1 believe to the CBC, that 94 per cent of the jobs are created in only one small area. He was referring to Toronto and southern Ontario. That statement is false as well. Some 46 per cent of the jobs created were in Ontario, 28 per cent in Quebec, 22 per cent in western Canada, and so on.
I hope my hon. friend will agree with me that the prosperity he knows full well exists in southern Ontario has been brought about in very substantial measure by foreign investment. The degree of prosperity and economic opportunity for our young people that exists in southern Ontario we want to see repeated elsewhere, from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Surely that is fairness for all Canadians.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance to whom I gave notice. When he tables the White Paper on June 18, is he going to table only a White Paper, a proposal or, as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs said, a maxi-Budget? More precisely, will he be announcing tax changes which will take effect either immediately or before a formal budget speech?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me notice of part of the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: Give us only part of the answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will give him only part of the answer. It will be a White Paper. It will be a prime time White Paper.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY WHETHER TAX AMENDMENTS WILL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON JUNE 18 OR AT A DATE PRECEDING OFFICIAL BUDGET
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, playing with words is all very well, but I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that lately, he has been using press releases to announce changes in the Canadian tax system. And I probably don't have them all! I would like to say to the Minister that this time, we on this side of the House will be very reluctant to accept tax reform without a Budget, in other words, tax reform by press release.
Once again, I would like to ask the Minister, and I don't want to play word games: On June 18, will there be any tax changes that will become effective immediately or on a date preceding an official budget speech?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to bring down a Budget. The Minister of Finance will present a bulky White Paper on tax reform, and I think it will be very important for Canadians.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Sherrold Moore, Vice-President of Amoco Canada Limited, dated May 8, 1987, raising money for the Minister and his constituency association. It says among other things that the PCs have made the energy industry a high priority.
Will the Minister undertake to remove himself from any decision of his department or Cabinet regarding the proposed takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have in my association, as the Hon. Member has in his, I am sure, people who campaign and raise money on my behalf. It is part of the democratic process. All of those people have day jobs. I do not understand the implications the Hon. Member is putting forward. If he is somehow suggesting that there is something improper in volunteers helping a political Party in this way, and that somehow I am not allowed as the Member of Parliament for Calgary Centre to have people who happen to work in the oil industry working on behalf of my association, I simply disagree.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister will know I am not suggesting that. I am simply trying to ensure that there is no conflict or even an appearance of a conflict.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The CLC made you say that.


Otto John Jelinek: Either make an accusation or shut up.


DOME PETROLEUM-QUERY CONCERNING CABINET DECISION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he indicate whether it was a cabinet decision not to get Petro-Canada involved in the bidding for Dome Petroleum? Were any of his Ministers involved in that in any way other than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows full well that no Prime Minister or cabinet Minister comments on the substance of private discussions in Cabinet.
Oral Questions


VIA RAIL
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Forget report on unemployment insurance was thrown out. This week, the Horner report on the future of VIA Rail was also thrown out, although it cost about a million dollars.
Can the Minister justify not following up the main and unanimous recommendation in the Horner report that VIA Rail should purchase new rolling stock or otherwise close down?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, much of what was recommended in the Horner task force report has been implemented. This House has already heard that an additional $361 million will be spent on VIA Rail over the next five years for a total of $2.5 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, those expenditures are excessive because the Minister has been dragging his feet and because of mismanagement at VIA.


THE CANADIAN-TRANSCONTINENTAL TRAIN SERVICE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister now aware that one-third of the service of the transcontinental train, The Canadian, will be cut? How can the Minister justify such a cut when this train is normally sold out during the busy summer months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that the transcontinental train is not going to be shortened this summer, it is simply not going to be lengthened. One of the reasons for that is that more refurbished cars are needed. Up to 200 cars will have airconditioning installed and will have their heating systems changed from steam to electric. We will not have this problem after they are refurbished.


INVESTMENT IN NEW CARS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Government has preached financial competency and fiscal responsibility since it was elected. Yet in the case of VIA Rail it has shown that it is not interested in either fiscal responsibility or, apparently, in a real future for passenger rail in Canada.
Why was the Minister of Transport unable to convince his cabinet colleagues to invest in new rail passenger cars which would not only pay for themselves in seven years but would put

May 21, 1987
Oral Questions
VIA Rail in a very good financial situation thereafter, or did he even try?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my activities behind the scenes have to remain secret of course. I can assure you that you would find them very interesting were I to expose myself to your gaze while engaged in them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Save yourself the trouble.


John Carnell Crosbie: With regard to this question, I regret that we are not in a position to go any further at this time with VIA Rail. We believe that the steps we are taking will considerably improve service, improve comfort and convenience for passengers, and help VIA to be on time more and more in the future. It involves the purchase of new locomotives and the refurbishing of equipment. I think the hon. gentleman will find a considerable improvement. The question of new cars will still have to be dealt with at some time in the future.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that line from many, many Ministers.


EFFECT OF DECISION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister's Government not take into consideration the impact of this decision on the workers at CanCar in Thunder Bay and Bombardier in Montreal? Why did it not take into consideration the fact that not going ahead with the contract would cost the taxpayer, including the UIC fund, upwards of S30 million to protect the workers whose jobs will be lost as a result? Why did the Government not consider those matters when it discussed the question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the work which we are now providing VIA Rail with the funds to do will involve 8,000 person-years of work in the construction and manufacturing sectors. We are not forgetting that.
The hon. gentleman should ask the companies which he mentioned whether they were keeping that problem in mind when they submitted their prices to do this work. The cars came in at hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of what had originally been estimated.
The hon. gentleman might well ask them why they did not sharpen their pencils and come in with a price which we might have found sustainable rather than one $100 million in excess of what was originally envisaged.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM INDIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from India led by Mr. Sat Paul Mittal, Member of Parliament, Chairman of the Parliamentarians Action for Removal of Apartheid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post, who was in the House earlier, or to whomever is prepared to answer on his behalf. Since it came to power, the Conservative Government has cut postal services by installing its so-called superboxes and by closing down post offices in rural areas. Soon, Canadians will have no postal services at all, thanks to the irresponsible attitude of the Minister responsible for the Post Office, and this may bring about a strike. Could the Minister or his surrogate inform the House why the Government keeps using confrontation tactics with its workers instead of being concerned about restoring the postal services this Government has cut, while it continues to deprive Canada of essential services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has just left the Chamber for a minute. I will take notice of the question and get back to him.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member again later.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In response to the OECD agreement to reduce grain export subsidies the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Amstutz has said that U.S. proposals to reduce subsidies in step with Europe will take 10 to 13 years to achieve.
May 21, 1987

Is it a requirement of this understanding that Canadian subsidies such as the Special Grains Program must be dropped immediately, or can Canadian subsidies be reduced over the extended phase-out period?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement reached at the OECD meetings last week in Paris was good news in that for the first time there was unanimous agreement that agriculture should be given top priority. The language of the communique, which I am sure the Hon. Member has looked at, is certainly encouraging.
We have no intention of doing anything which would damage our farmers other than to act, if we are satisfied, in total concert with other countries to ensure that collectively we can bring some action to bear which will resolve this very serious international question.


CANADIAN POLICY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform the House of what, if any, concrete commitments have been made by the Americans and/or the Europeans to put on the table for the OECD meetings?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is more of a question of the progress that we can make at the over-all GATT discussions which are presently under way. There is good potential, as I understand it, to have proposals tabled during the summer and to have discussions on those proposals under way early in the new year.
As the Hon. Member will recall, the last time GATT meetings were under way at the Tokyo Round it took over four years for these types of discussions to begin. We are on a very much shortened time frame and the proposals which will be put on the table will certainly be at the GATT for discussion and not in this kind of a forum.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will try to combine my two questions into one now that the Minister is in the House. Canadians are dissatisfied with the Government's reduced postal service. Canada Post employees are also dissatisfied with the cut in service policy of the Government. Why is he doing everything he can to shut down Canada Post with his irresponsible statement?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, service is being increased over the next-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Where?


Harvie Andre: Over the next four years there will be 6,000 new-


Some Hon. Members:: Where?


Harvie Andre: Apparently the Hon. Member is not prepared to listen to my answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked Hon. Members to consider carefully that there are a number of questions yet to be asked in the Question Period. We have had two days that have gone very slowly, and it is the exchanges across the Chamber that contribute to that. The Hon. Minister.


Harvie Andre: As I was indicating, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of Canada Post to open 6,000 new postal outlets in the next four years in an effort to improve the service. What it is endeavouring to do now through management changes, through efficiency, through new productivity and new capital investment, is to ensure that there is dependable service to all Canadians, service in which they can have confidence.
An independent, outside auditing firm that will report to Parliament on a quarterly basis has been hired so that we will have that type of independent source of information to see whether the improved service for which the Post Office is striving will in fact be the result.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for multicultur-alism. He is aware that his offer to the National Association of Japanese Canadians of $12 million for a community fund has been rejected by the Council of the NAJC this past weekend. Does he intend to go to this meeting with the NAJC on June 1 ready to negotiate seriously with the association in the attempt to arrive at a genuine redress package, and to take seriously their responses to his first offer?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that that has been my approach and my attitude since the beginning. It will continue to be my approach and attitude.


RESOURCES ALLOCATED BY GOVERNMENT
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister, whose Government has found resources of up to a billion dollars at a time to meet important national needs, ensure that the Minister responsible for multicultural-ism can go to the meeting on June 1 with the resources to

May 21, 1987
Oral Questions
carry on serious negotiations and keep the promise which the Prime Minister made to the Japanese Canadian community and to the Canadian people?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that I speak for the Government in all of these matters and, as always, the Prime Minister has been supportive.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a recent, well publicized statement, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, stated that over the last two and one-half years over 95 per cent of all of the jobs created in Canada were created within a radius of 160 kilometres of Metropolitan Toronto. My constituents find that a little difficult to comprehend. Will the Minister advise the House and my constituents whether that is correct?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to correct the so-called NDP statistics that were used. In the last year, 21.5 per cent of the jobs created in this country were in the Toronto area.
My hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East also said that 95 per cent of jobs were created in Ontario. That is absolutely false. The fact is that 35 per cent of jobs were created in Ontario and Ontario represents 38 per cent of the labour force in this country. It is not a shame to create jobs in Ontario.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The workers and their families at the Hawker Siddeley Car Works in Trenton, Nova Scotia, are frustrated and disappointed at the Government's inability to provide meaningful leadership to assist the workers and to provide stability to that community.
Will the Minister indicate to the House, to the workers, and to the municipal representatives of Trenton, Nova Scotia, what concrete action his Government has taken with regard to providing employment opportunities in that region of Nova Scotia?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in the region knows that the Canadian Government has made a commitment to ensure that the Trenton plant will be sold as an operation and a going concern. Mr. Speaker, we obviously have to look at several alternatives. There have been discussions with various business people and companies that might be interested in acquiring the plant. Since these talks are confidential, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I cannot really elaborate.


GOVERNMENT DECISION-TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister with great sincerity that discussions, meetings and consultations are no substitute for concrete specific action by the Government of Canada. I ask the Minister, on behalf of those workers and their families, when will he put a positive proposal on the table so that workers and the people of Trenton, Nova Scotia, will understand something about their future? In all decency, I ask the Minister to give us a date as to when he will make a decision on their future.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we are doing our utmost to provide a future for the workers of these regions, as we have done for all workers in the eastern provinces. That is why we have created so many jobs since 1984, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that our routine is a little out of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, then return to the New Democratic Party.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the coroner's inquest into the murder of Celia Ruygrok. During the course of the inquest the federal Government was accused of "buck passing, using a big stick, and intimidation". Will the Solicitor General explain to the people of Canada why the federal Government refused to co-operate fully at the coroner's inquest? What was it hiding, and why has the federal Government not assumed full responsibility for this tragedy?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have been following the inquest very closely and have taken everything that has been said very seriously. Having said that, I want to
May 21, 1987

assure the Hon. Member and every Member of the House that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has co-operated fully in that inquiry, has had absolutely nothing to hide, and in fact has hidden nothing.


John V. Nunziata: The Minister knows that that is absolute nonsense. He knows that that tragedy could have been avoided and that the criminal justice system failed in a very miserable and tragic way in this particular case.


MEASURES TO PREVENT SIMILAR TRAGEDIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what measures has the Solicitor General taken to ensure that this type of tragedy does not happen again?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. gentleman I prefer to wait until the report comes out, and then assess the facts, assess the recommendations and address them as well as possible. I do not like to try to condemn people and come to judgments before I know what the report will contain.


REFUGEES
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On June 2, 1986, I stated in the House my serious concern over the abuse of the refugee system by one Francesco Piperno, who was wanted in Italy in connection with the murder of Aldo Moro.
We know the Piperno case is now before the refugee appeal board, awaiting a decision, and therefore nothing further can be said on that subject. However, on Monday Mr. Piperno was sentenced in absentia to 10 years in prison by the Italian authorities for helping to establish an armed terrorist group. Will the Minister tell the House what precautions the Government has taken to ensure that this individual poses no security threat to Canadians while he uses our refugee system?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct that the case is before the Immigration Appeal Board and it would be inappropriate to comment on such a matter. I understand the Member's concern and would ask him to await the decision of that quasijudicial body.
Oral Questions


ABORTIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services, who is also the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. As she knows, recently Statistics Canada changed the time space for the collection of data on abortion statistics to three years rather than an annual collection. This has seriously undermined the scientific research into the high incidence of adolescent pregnancies, a matter about which I am sure she is very concerned.
Will the Minister take immediate steps to revert to the original data base from hospital reports which was reliable, provided increasing detail and was published annually, so that we can get at this very serious problem?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House before, I am of course very concerned about the statistics on abortion. As soon as I became the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, I asked for a review, to ensure that the statistics we shall be compiling are real statistics, which take into account private clinics in Quebec. In co-operation with the provinces, we have been able to set up a program which, I think, far better reflects the real situation regarding statistics on the abortion rate in Canada.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON ANNUAL BASIS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Through you, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Minister will make available this information on an annual basis which is absolutely essential? We want prevention; that is why it is so important.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, being a federal agency, Statistics Canada also has to conform to budget restrictions, and after assessing the program, we agreed that we could make a comprehensive assessment of the program every three years, since the statistics fluctuated very little. In fact, the improvement we have made in the annual statistics has vastly improved the whole program, and I am very satisfied with what is being done today.

May 21, 1987
Oral Questions
[English]	CANADA POST CORPORATION


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I would like to return to the answer he gave to my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, because I could not believe my ears. Did the Minister actually say that nothing has been done following the killing by Sweeney at the halfway house in Ottawa and that he is waiting for the report of an inquest before taking any action at all, in spite of the obvious evidence that procedures needed to be corrected and tightened up to prevent a murderer in a situation like that from being delivered to a halfway house with no warning? Surely something was done and the Minister should correct the answer he gave that he was waiting for an inquest report.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made an incorrect assumption. What I said is I have naturally not answered the evidence brought out at the inquest because I have not seen the jury's recommendations in that regard. Obviously, I cannot do anything until they come out. However, in anticipation of that, I have already asked my Deputy Minister to review the recommendations immediately and report to me once they come.
1 can assure the Hon. Member that immediately following the death there was an immediate investigation carried out into the procedures at that halfway house. A number of recommendations were made and they have been and were acted upon immediately.


MEASURES TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, with an incident as serious as this, I think the House is entitled to be told, and the question to be answered, what was done as a result of that tragic death to tighten up the system.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What did you do?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to list, and I will obtain for the Hon. Member, the recommendations which were made as a result of that inquiry, and the measures we took. I do not have them with me today but I will be quite glad to furnish them immediately to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be from the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford).


DESECRATION OF VETERAN'S PLAQUE IN HIGHBURY POST OFFICE, LONDON
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Minister is aware that a veteran's plaque located in the Highbury Post Office processing plant in London was recently desecrated, defaced and trashed. Will the Minister undertake to the House to investigate this incident and install the restored plaque in a prominent place in the Dominion Building in downtown London?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did ask the Post Office to conduct an investigation, which it is doing. It assures me it was not on anyone's orders from management. It still has not determined who in fact did take the plaque down and who desecrated it but, indeed, it is the intention to have that plaque properly restored to a position of honour.


Mr. Speaker:: There are several questions of privilege which the Chair will now hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Benoît Bouchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on a point of order.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is just to correct the answer I gave earlier about 21.5 per cent of the jobs created in Toronto. This should be for three years, not just for one year.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since it relates to the same point of order raised by the Minister, I have the April statistics from Statistics Canada which indicate that the unemployment rate in Windsor, contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, is 9.9 per cent compared to 9.8 per cent nationally and compared to 4.5 per cent in the City of Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members, of course, appreciate factual representations and we are indebted to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). However, I think we are getting into debate.
I have several notices of points of order and questions of privilege. I want to assure Hon. Members that the Chair will recognize each Member who wishes to rise, but the Chair cannot recognize them all at the same time.
May 21, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon. Government House Leader could answer the business question today and tell us what the Government intends to bring before the House in the coming days.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that tomorrow will be an allotted day. On Monday special provisions have been made for the visit of President Mitterrand of France. We are presently looking at what might be done on Tuesday. I think if negotiations go well, we will be able to tell the House either tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also on House business. The Parliamentary Secretary would be aware that yesterday at the House Leaders' meeting I raised the possibility of knowing as soon as possible when we could expect that the Government might be calling Government business for the Private Members' hour. We have a Private Members' Bill in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and I would appreciate very much if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us when we might expect the vote on that particular Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that will depend on what day Government business is called. It would appear that if Government business is called on Tuesday, then normally the Private Members' hour would follow and the last hour of debate, 1 believe, on the Hon. Members' Bill would take place then and the vote would proceed that evening.
At this point I am not able to suggest whether or not Tuesday will be an allotted day or a day for Government business. However, I appreciate that the Hon. Member and other committee members have business to do, and as soon as we know we will certainly communicate with the Hon. Member's House Leader's office.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this discussion on House business. I believe I have to say, and all Members will recognize, that the answer which has been given to us is absolutely useless. We all know it is an allotted day tomorrow. We all know the President of France is coming next Monday. Now we are being told that the Government does not know what it is going to do Tuesday or Wednesday. In fact, we are receiving a non-answer. I would like us to get back to the tradition of the Government giving this House its agenda for a week, which has been the practice in the past.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. At the present time, there are certain matters
Privilege-Mr. Andre
that we are discussing and negotiating. We hoped to have heard from my colleague's office with respect to certain matters this afternoon. I do not wish to negotiate House business on the floor of the House. We are certainly prepared to meet with representatives of both Parties to discuss these matters just as soon as they are in a position to advise us of their views.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will hear, first of all, from the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on a question of privilege, followed by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), again on a question of privilege, following which the Chair shall hear from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


PRIVILEGE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege with some regret, but out of a feeling that it is necessary to address the issue, as it is an issue that goes to the fundamental rights, not just of myself as a Member of Parliament and a cabinet Minister but of all Members of Parliament.
The implication in the question raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and it was a direct implication, an accusation, is that because a member of my riding association is an employee of Amoco Canada, I either might be or am in conflict of interest in terms of acting in any way in respect of the potential takeover of Dome by Amoco Canada.
Let me indicate the dilemma for me, Mr. Speaker, and for every Member of the House, if that implication is allowed to stand unchallenged. Mr. Sherrold Moore is guilty only of being a concerned citizen, a citizen who participates in the political process by giving voluntarily of his time to our Party, both at the provincial and federal levels. That is his only sin, so to speak. It is an activity that all Members of this House depend upon in order to maintain our associations. It is absolutely vital to the success of our political Parties and to the political system in which we function.
I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if some members of my association worked for Dome. I know that has been true in the past. I know there is at least one other employee in my association who works for Amoco. I have others in my association who work for other oil companies.
The implication, Mr. Speaker, that I would be in conflict of interest when it comes to the energy sector because there are volunteers working for my riding association who are employed in that sector is one that goes to the root of our democratic process, and it is one that must not be allowed to stand.

May 21, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Andre
I suggest that there are in this Chamber over 100 Members who have farmers as members of their associations but who nevertheless regularly participate in agricultural debates and vote on agricultural measures. I submit that there are at least 30 Members opposite whose association memberships include union executives, and yet they regularly participate in discussions and votes pertaining to labour matters. In no such instance would it occur to me to suggest a conflict of interest. It would not be appropriate for me to suggest that a Member of Parliament absent himself or herself from discussion, debate or vote on a question because some member of his or her volunteer riding association happens to be employed by a union, or an oil company, or carries on a farming operation.
The question raised by the Member for Vancouver- Kingsway was prefaced with a request that I absent myself from any discussions having to do with the Dome/Amoco deal because a member of my executive, a member of my riding association, is an employee of Amoco. He then went on to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whether in fact I had ever discussed the role in this of Petro-Canada.
I can tell the Hon. Member that there are members of my riding executive who work for Petro-Canada. What does that imply? Is no one allowed to participate in the political process as a volunteer worker for political Parties if in fact his or her employer, at some time, might have business of interest to the Government of Canada, or vice versa?
While there was no accusation of conflict of interest, a conflict of interest was clearly implied. I suggest to the Hon. Member that the honourable thing for him to do would be to rise in his place and acknowledge that there is no conflict of interest; or, alternatively, to accuse me of a conflict of interest and have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure so that it might be adjudicated by a panel of this House. Otherwise, I am placed in an impossible position, as would be every other responsible concerned Member of this House.
We are going to have to examine the credentials of those who volunteer to work on our respective riding associations, those who choose to work as volunteers in the democratic process. It is an impossible position to be in.
I deeply resent the implication that Mr. Sherrold Moore might have been doing something improper. All he is guilty of is good citizenship.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister raising the matter. It is, I think, an important matter.
Let me just say to the Minister that I have not accused Mr. Sherrold Moore of doing anything wrong, of committing any sin, as the Minister put it. I have not accused him of being guilty of anything. I have not made any such accusation, nor do I intend to. Nor have I accused the Minister of a conflict of interest. As a matter of fact, I think I pointed out in my
question that I specifically made no accusation of conflict of interest.
It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to ask tough questions. Tough questions do not necessarily lead to a matter of privilege. It is a tough question. At the time of the biggest corporate takeover in the history of this country, the corporate takeover of Dome by Amoco Canada, a very controversial takeover, the Minister has on his riding executive an employee of Amoco Canada.
Insofar as the takeover itself is concerned, the Government seems to be standing on the side, with the Opposition calling for a Canadian solution. We all know the debate. There is a lot at stake for the companies involved, for the country, for the political process. Given that situation, I am entitled to raise the question I raised.
This is not an ordinary member of his executive. He is a fund raiser, and he is raising funds at a time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, I have to point that out. There can be a difference.
The Minister has confirmed that Mr. Moore is a fund raiser, an individual who is raising money at this particular time, a time when the proposed takeover is such a hot issue in the country.
In my question, I asked the Minister about the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. Should the Amoco takeover go through it is a matter that will come before the Cabinet. I therefore asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), without alleging any conflict of interest, whether there had been a decision affecting the role of Petro-Canada in terms of whether or not it could bid against Amoco for Dome. That is something the Government has in its power, and it is part of the issue in this debate. For that reason, I put the question to the Prime Minister, and it was a proper question.
I am not accusing the Minister of anything. In my view, and I think this would be the view of the Canadian people, this would be an inappropriate time for the Minister to have on his riding executive a fund raiser who has a high position in Amoco Canada. The Hon. Member, as Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), might have to deal with this question at some point, either within his Department or within Cabinet.
It seems to me that I am entitled to ask the question, and I do not think it leads to a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall hear the Hon. Member further, but I would ask that the Chair be extended the courtesy of being sent the letter which was quoted when the question was asked. If there is a copy available, I should like to see it.
I will continue to hear from the Hon. Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I shall arrange to have the page deliver the letter to you.
May 21, 1987

There really is not very much more that I wish to say. I was merely trying to set the context in which the question was asked.
To summarize, I am not accusing the Minister of any conflict of interest. I want to know what the Minister's involvement in the process was-


Jack Wendele Shields: Just by innuendo.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my submission is that it is a perfectly proper question. The Minister answered the question, and his viewpoint was that he would continue. I thought the answer was that he would continue to sit on committees and deal with this matter. My feeling and that of my Party is that he should not, if he is a fund raiser who is involved intimately with the company in such a direct and open way as this. I think it could cause the appearance of problems, and I put that to the Minister. He may disagree, and he is entitled to disagree. I happen to think that most of the Canadian public might think the way I do.


Harvie Andre: Scum bag.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is now yelling "scum bag". I do not think that-


Harvie Andre: I retract that comment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you. The Minister has kindly withdrawn that comment.
We may have different views. It may be a tough question. However, I have not accused the Minister of any conflict. I have raised the matter. I have an answer. I disagree with the answer. I will pursue it further. It is a tough question, but it is not a question of privilege.


Jack Wendele Shields: It is sickening innuendo.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) could further assist the Speaker in considering this matter which, as I indicated a few days ago on a somewhat similar case, I take seriously.
I have read the letter from which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted in his question. I would just like to be sure that I fully understand the Hon. Member's position. Is there anything in the letter itself, in the substance of the letter, which causes the Hon. Member any difficulty, or is it just the question that Mr. Moore who is in the oil industry is also a member of the constituency organization and a fund raiser for the Hon. Minister? In other words, is the letter itself in any way a source of concern for the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, or is it the fact that a fund-raising effort is being made?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the letter which concerns me. As the Minister said, a Canadian is entitled to exercise his or her political rights. What I am
Privilege-Mr. Andre
concerned about, what I raised in the question, was the fact that the fund raiser is a Vice-President of Amoco Canada, a senior executive, at a time when the Government may be called upon to make a huge decision about this corporate takeover, with competing Canadian companies, including a government company. That is what I am concerned about. I say that it could cause the appearance of difficulty for the Minister, and that is why I put the question to him.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. While I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), though I do not think it is a question of privilege, I think it is an important point. The same information was made available to me. I spoke with the party about this. I asked a few questions on the basis of the information. It seems that this party, the Vice-President of Amoco who is involved in the constituency association of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), has been in this capacity for at least two years.
There was no proof that these letters were sent out using the frank. There was no indication which this person could give me that any undue influence was being applied or that anything other than the letter was being used. I think it is important to relate this information to the House.
While it is important that all Members be perceived as being above any kind of unscrupulous, subversive, or clandestine activity, we must draw a line. I agree with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that members of oil companies are entitled to be members of his organization.
The facts in this case speak for themselves. I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, feel that everything is quite in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has made his case very well. As everybody knows, he is no stranger to the House and can hardly be expected to need my assistance.
However, I wish to draw to the attention of the House Your Honour's words on a previous occasion, as reported at page 5127 of Hansard for April 14, 1987, as follows:
However, I think the point the Hon Minister is making, as a result of which
his privileges have been breached, is that the effect of the innuendo carried by
the questions was to slander him. The innuendo was an accusation or an
assertion that the Hon. Minister was in breach of the guidelines.
Nobody in any Party is afraid of tough questions, whether they are placed in the House or at committee. One does not get into this business if one is afraid of tough questions. However, we are afraid of the phrasing of questions which slander within the walls of the House not only the Minister but innocent people out there.
When my hon. colleague in the Liberal Party rose, I was not at all surprised to hear him say what he said. I hold him in

May 21, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Andre
high esteem. However, I say to the House that we are privileged in here because we can say what we want to say within the walls of the House. We abuse the privileges of the House, as well as the privileges of the Minister, if we say things in the House that we will not say outside because, as my hon. colleague who is a lawyer knows very well, an inference is drawn when somebody works as a volunteer for an organization, is employed with an oil company, and asks for money on behalf of the Minister and the Minister is asked whether he was involved in any decisions. The Hon. Member knows very well that that is innuendo and slander by innuendo.
When one does that, one abuses not only the privileges of the Minister but all volunteers out there working in our riding associations. Every volunteer out there who works for me or for other Members of the House is slandered when a Member uses his ability in the House to say something which cannot be acted upon.
I know this matter has been raised as a question of privilege. If you find, Mr. Speaker, that it is a question of privilege after listening to the argument, I would be prepared to support my hon. colleague in framing the motion to send the matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how it can be slander if I am not accusing the Minister of conflict of interest. How can it be slander if I specifically said the contrary in the question?
I believe as strongly as the Hon. Minister that people should be active in the political process, and I agree that oilmen have to be active in the political process for all Parties. Surely I am entitled to ask tough questions in respect of the Minister's involvement in these decisions, whether government companies have been involved, and whether the Minister may want to take steps to make changes. His fund raiser, while the matter is possibly before the Government, may not want to do it and may want to have someone else do it for a while.


Harvie Andre: Why?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not to give the appearance of any conflict of interest to the Canadian public. That is where the Minister and 1 differ on the particular matter.


Harvie Andre: You are making an accusation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I repeat once again that I have not made any accusation of conflict of interest.


Jack Wendele Shields: An innuendo.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have not made any innuendo. I have asked a tough question, and I think I am entitled in the House to ask these kinds of questions.


Harvie Andre: To slander anybody you want!


Mr. Speaker:: Sometimes there is a temptation to argue such cases directly between and among Members and not through
the Chair. This gives the Chair some difficulty, as Hon. Members can understand.
The Chair's responsibility in this regard is to hear the complaint and to hear very carefully the defence. It is very important for the Chair to know exactly what position the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is taking in the argument, because that of course affects the approach the Chair takes when delivering a ruling in answer to a complaint brought to the Chair. With the greatest respect to all Hon. Members, it does not assist the Chair to have comments tossed around in the Chamber and not put through the Chair, especially when the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is making his defence. I think this tends to make it more difficult for the Chair rather than easier.
As I say, I heard the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary quoting one of my own rulings of a few days ago to which I have just referred. I assure all Hon. Members that the Chair does take this kind of problem very seriously. It is also the reason that all argument ought to be very carefully heard and not interrupted.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to express the opinion that regardless of whether or not the Minister may feel he has a legitimate beef, disagreement or complaint, what was contained in the question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) I do not think in any way makes it a question of privilege.
What you are seeing here is a disagreement. The Hon. Member for Vancouver has said that he is not accusing the Minister of a conflict of interest or of wrongdoing. He was just asking whether or not it is proper that the Minister should now be involved in a potential cabinet decision when a fund raising letter just recently went out from a vice-president of Amoco, involved in the possible takeover of Dome, on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The question is whether or not that is appropriate. Surely to goodness that is a legitimate question. There was no implication that there might be a conflict of interest. The Member was asking whether or not it is the proper action by a cabinet Minister. I do not see any precedents in the rules of this place, and I have been here quite a while, where this could in any possible way be a question of privilege. I think it is a disagreement between two Members and nothing more than that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will hear other Hon. Members in a moment.
It is the responsibility of the Chair in a situation like this to be sure that the issue is very carefully defined. I take it from what the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and from what the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) have said that there was no intent on the part of the Member from Vancouver-Kingsway to accuse
May 21, 1987

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) of any wrongdoing. I take it that that is the position of the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I also take it that the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway is saying, however, that under the circumstances he feels entitled to ask questions at least with respect to the fact that somebody in the riding association of the Hon. Minister is an employee of a company which is central in a lot of publicity and which company is important in terms of jobs to the industry and to Canada. I want to be absolutely sure that I understand exactly what the Member from Vancouver- Kingsway is saying.
As I have had to comment on other occasions, even lacking a complete charge, questions can be put in such a way that they do carry an innuendo of wrongdoing. What I want to be absolutely sure of is that the Member for Vancouver- Kingsway is saying to me that not only did he not charge the Minister with any wrongdoing but that he did not intend any innuendo of wrongdoing to carry.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is almost exactly correct, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to cast any innuendo of wrongdoing. I am not accusing the Minister of wrongdoing.
I would adopt what you have said, Mr. Speaker, with the exception that at the end I would add that there is not just a question of jobs but a question of a major government decision either somewhere down the road or through Petro-Canada maybe having already been made.
Finally, since I forgot it last time, I would respectfully submit that this is a different case from the one referred to by the Hon. Deputy House Leader for the Government. He referred to Hansard at page 5127. I think that was an incident where there was an allegation that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) on some personal matters was somehow breaching cabinet guidelines.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Conflict of interest.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is different from this case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There is an old saying in the law courts among those who practise there that one should never extend one's defence too far if one has been doing fairly well up to that point.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the Hon. Member's comments.
The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) is seeking the floor.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this matter because I see it as being fundamental on two counts. First, I have been concerned for some time that there has been an evolving practice in the House of Commons of using names in here of people who are not Members of the
Privilege-Mr. Andre
House and, therefore, have no opportunity, no right and no chance to defend themselves. I think that is really crucial. If that happens and if there is either directly or indirectly an accusation, an implication, a presentation or an appearance of wrongdoing, that person is immediately put in a position of guilt with no opportunity for defence and no opportunity to clear or to protect their own good reputation or name.
If we looked back over Hansard for the last couple of years we would find that this is becoming a growing practice in this House. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that in the very strongest terms we should come to grips with this problem. Whether it be an incident such as we have had this afternoon or whether it be other incidents that we have had in the past, people's reputations have been tarnished in the House of Commons either directly or indirectly, and those people are left outside these walls swinging in the wind with no chance to clear their names or to protect themselves.
We know of people who have been very badly hurt by these implications. I have made the arguments before, and I want to make them again, that we in this House have a special privilege. That privilege says we can make any statement we wish in here, and we can then not be sued in a court of this land because that is a privilege we need in order to have freedom of speech to represent fairly, clearly and as bravely as possible the concerns and the issues that we have.
I have argued in the past that with those privileges come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is very clearly the responsibility to be very careful in the way that we treat other people, for instance, their names, their reputations and the kind of standards which they themselves live up to.
I want to refer to a case I had in this House in 1982-83 when I was in opposition in which the Speaker of the day ruled that I had a prima facie case of privilege. What was fascinating about that case is that it involved a member of the public who had done something which I felt was a breach of my privileges. The matter was raised in the House. The whole process of the arguments and the debates lasted about two to three weeks, but not once did that individual's name come up. That person's name, in my opinion, could not be divulged because the person had no opportunity to do anything until the Speaker found there was a prima facie case of privilege. That having happened, the House then sent the matter to a committee. The individual was then able to make a defence. Up until that point I never mentioned the individual's name. No one else mentioned it because there was a fundamental privilege involved of protecting the interests of people outside these walls.
I would argue that this is in fact very fundamental and important to the way this House works and to the privileges granted. If we abuse those privileges then we have no right to them and they should be taken away from us. We have responsibilities that go with privileges. We cannot do anything indirectly which we could not do directly. That is the fine line we are walking here today. If we are not careful we will come

May 21, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Andre
right up against the privileges of Members of Parliament and, more important, of the very people we claim to represent.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. First, as we all know, political Parties in this country are based totally on volunteers. As soon as you imply that somehow a benefit flows to those who volunteer, then you call into question whether people are really volunteering their time.
There is no question, at least in my mind, that the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) were put in such a way as to impugn the motives of both the Hon. Minister and the other person involved. That is very unfortunate. As the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) said, when you bring the name of someone into a discussion and that person has no idea that is going to happen, you automatically preclude that person from having any say in his or her defence. That also is very unfortunate. There is a practice that some of us in this House follow, that is, you never ever raise a person's name in the House without first clearing it with them. Doing that is very useful in protecting the privileges of people outside this House.
Second, as Government gets larger and larger it becomes virtually impossible to carry on activities which are isolated from what goes on in this place. To use myself as an example, I represent an agricultural constituency. Many of the people on the Progressive Conservative association in my riding of Portage-Marquette are farmers. Many of the people on my executive are farmers. Am I supposed to tailor my activities as a member of the Government to what goes on in my constituency so there can be no appearance of conflict of interest? The Government makes many decisions on behalf of farmers. When we set initial payments, is it supposed to be done at a time when there is no fund-raising or other activity going on in our constituencies so there can be no possible appearance of a link between the two? Setting the payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act is a major event in the spring. Is that supposed to happen at a time when there is no constituency activity in my riding association?
The mere fact that the Hon. Member raised the question in such a way as to imply some kind of unfit conduct calls into question many other government activities. As unfair as it is to the Minister involved, it is also grossly unfair to those volunteers who support political Parties so that the system can function as well as it does. This has implications not only for the Minister but for the way all of us as Members gain support in our constituencies so that we are eventually elected to this place, and for the way Government functions.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said there is no conflict of interest and he is not implying any conflict of interest. However, the thrust of his question was whether I would absent myself from any discussions concerning Dome
and Amoco. The question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) dealt with whether I participated in any such discussions.
There is only one reason why I would absent myself from any such discussions, and that is, in order not to be in a conflict of interest. The fact that he asked if I would absent myself is, prima facie, a suggestion that I am in a conflict of interest and must not participate in those decisions. While he says he makes no accusation of conflict of interest and does not mean to imply it, he asks that I do something which I would only do if 1 were in a conflict of interest. I humbly suggest that if he wants to be consistent he should withdraw the implied suggestion in his question to the Prime Minister that I must not participate in any discussions concerning Dome and Amoco. To do otherwise is to leave the implication that I am in a conflict of interest.
As a Liberal Member pointed out, the person concerned on my executive has been doing this for two years. He has been on the executive longer than that, but he has been on the fundraising committee for the last couple of years. He is doing this year what he did last year, that is, his activity on the executive. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) had the decency to talk to him before raising this matter and learned that it has nothing to do with any business transaction. He is simply participating as a volunteer in the same way that he has in the past and, hopefully, will in the future if he has not been totally turned off and soured by this experience.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the comments just made by the Hon. Minister cover a good part of the points I wanted to make, so I will be very brief.
What I have to say flows mainly from the comments of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Slander is an issue of privilege. Moreover, slander by innuendo is no less slanderous. On hearing the question by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) no reasonable citizen would doubt the intent. He says he did not intend to cast an innuendo. I do not believe him because, as the Hon. Minister indicated, the Hon. Member did not seek facts, an analysis, or any specific information. He rose only to question the propriety of the Minister undertaking certain activities, on the assumption and perhaps even in the hope that something might have been amiss.
I think the only appropriate and proper thing for the Hon. Member to do is, as requested, to withdraw, as the Hon. Liberal Member did, to his great credit.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I rose earlier because I had some information that the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) did not have. 1 did not mean to insinuate that the Hon. Member did not have the right to ask the questions he did. He said there was no innuendo intended, and I think all Members must acknowledge that statement and agree. I do not think it is within the realm of this House or any Member to cast aspersions on the statements of any Member
May 21, 1987

of Parliament. If he says he did not mean any innuendo, it is important that all Members take that as his position.
The Hon. Minister comes from a city where most people work in the oil industry. It is difficult not to have some kind of connection. However, there is a perception here and that is what it is. Whether it is within the realm of this House to deal with it, or if it is up to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to talk to the Minister, I honestly do not know. However, I would not want to think that, while we do not want to cast aspersions on other Members, we do not have the right to ask questions. As one Member has said, we mention names in the House and by association cast aspersions on those other people. I do not think that is necessarily the case.
I honestly do not think this is a question of privilege, as I said initially. I do not think the Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is in a situation of conflict of interest, mainly because of the information which I had. I honestly believe that this is a very, very important question because, on the one hand, Members of Parliament need to have the right to have certain people work for them without being worried about the connotation of their involvement. As well, it is important that Members of Parliament be granted the right to ask questions. Where the perception exists I think it would be wrong for the Chair to limit the scope of Members of Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to enter this but I think something is being missed, that is that there would be no pith or substance to what we are talking about right now if there were not a couple of particular things going on in the country. First, the largest corporate takeover controversy in the country is the Dome-Amoco deal. I think the Minister would be the first to admit that when you have a large riding association you must question the appropriateness of having the Vice-President of Amoco sending out a fundraising letter in the midst of such a controversy. That is the pith and substance of why this issue is being raised as a question of privilege, although I do not believe it is a question of privilege.
The organization in Calgary Centre could have had anyone else send out the letter. It is not only a fund-raising letter. As I understand, it also says that the PCs have made the energy industry a high priority. The Minister is in the particularly important position of being responsible for both corporate affairs and consumer affairs. If Mr. Moore wants to write and send out hundreds of such fund-raising letters, he should be fully aware that some of them may end up in a newspaper or coming to the public's attention. The fact that this particular person, who happens to be the Vice-President of Amoco, has written a letter about the energy industry, fundraising for a particular Member at a particular time when an issue is highly controversial, is really the pith of this issue.
Let us shift ground a little bit. Let us say it was a Minister in another portfolio, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion for example, and Chrysler and GM were vying to
Privilege-Mr. Andre
build a plant in a particular area and the vice-president of GM happened to send out, at a particularly controversial time, a fund-raising letter in that particular area.
We must gain some perspective from the portfolio of the Minister involved, why the question was asked, the timing of the letter, and the fact that the question of energy was raised, tying it to a major controversy in the country. It is important that the pith of this issue be kept in mind.
I am affronted by the comments of the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) who said that he simply does not believe the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). That in itself constitutes a breach of privilege. The Minister shouted "scum bag" across the House and then withdrew it. We must keep in mind that the Minister and some Members on that side may be embarrassed that this has been raised. I am sure Mr. Moore was fully aware, when he put his signature to this letter and sent out hundreds of copies, that there was a possibility that it would come to the public's attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Before anything is added to the debate, keep in mind that it is not for the Chair to rule as to whether or not there ought to be some kind of guideline which spells out that people in a riding association of a Member of Parliament ought not do this or ought to do something else. That is not the issue which I have to determine. I have to determine whether the questions asked, and the context within which they were asked, injured the Minister sufficiently that his ability to function as a Member of this place and as a Minister would be diminished. That is the issue. That is what privilege is all about.
That is what I have to decide, and I would ask Hon. Members who have had the advantage of hearing some good arguments and wish to add something to this, to keep in mind that that is the issue. The issue is not whether or not there ought to be guidelines which cover this. The issue is whether the questions which were asked have damaged the Minister's ability to carry out the duties which he was sent here by the public to do.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. Every citizen in this land has the right to do his work unencumbered by aspersions or suggestions cast upon him by Members in this House. He has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that includes the Minister.
The question is not only whether or not he infringed upon the rights of the Minister without intending to. The fact is that he created a suspicion of guilt. It appears to me that he deliberately created an impression of suspicion. As long as that suspicion exists he has hampered the work of the Minister. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is a prima facie case that the Minister's rights have been violated by creating an unwarranted suspicion of the work of the Minister.

May 21, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Garneau


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my remarks, too, will be brief. I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation of the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). It appeared to me that the innuendo was being repeated. I am not saying that the Member for Skeena is making an accusation and I am not for a moment suggesting that I will accept what the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) says when he says that he is not accusing the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) of anything. The fact is that the question, framed in that way, casts an aspersion, whether or not it is done knowingly. That is not the question. In my mind the problem is whether the question casts an innuendo, whether or not the intent is there. That is the problem we face.
I do not control the activities of the association in my riding. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Members of this House that the Minister does not control the activities of the association which works on behalf of him in his riding. It is more than an arm's length transaction. In fact I asked my colleague, the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), whether he controls his association and he said that the association controls him. The association determines its own timetable when it does a fundraiser.
My last point is that Mr. Moore, the Vice-President of Amoco, is not identified as such in the letter. The only way that this comes to anyone's attention is when it is raised in the House. In my view, the fact that it was raised in the House further underlines the innuendo, whether or not it was intended.


Mr. Speaker:: Keeping in mind that this is an allotted day, the Chair has certainly been very much assisted by the interventions of all Hon. Members and for that I thank them. I will consider the matter and return to the House at the appropriate time.
[ Translation]


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT LAUZON SHIPYARDS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to raise a question of privilege which, I hope, will not take as long as the one we just heard.
Yesterday, after Oral Question Period, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) said that I had misinformed the House regarding the number of employees at the Lauzon shipyards. Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I said that "I learned over the week-end that there are only 400 workers left at the Lauzon shipyards". Mr. Speaker, it was obvious that in my question I was referring to organized workers who are paid by the hour in the shipyards and who are the first to be laid off when work is slack. I was not referring to the engineers and technicians, who usually are not laid off when there is a reduction in the amount of work.
This morning, to make sure, I also called the President, Mr. Jean Roch Brisson, to ask him how many employees were
actually working at the shipyards, and he told me that tomorrow's payroll, dated May 22, would cover 433 employees working directly at the shipyards and paid by the hour. Mr. Speaker, if I did make a mistake, I was out by 33.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday after the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) asked his question I wanted to check with the shipyard management, so I got in touch with the company public relations spokesman, Mr. Rene Halle, who did confirm that the company has 750 employees, not 400 as stated by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. Should the Chair so wish I would be in a position to produce the appropriate documents stating the exact number of employees and the source of my information. The House was well informed by the Member for Levis.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest that this may not be a question of privilege, but I thank the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) and the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) for correcting Hansard. Thank you for your attention to the details of the debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That this House expresses its disappointment with the Government for its failure to deal effectively with the severe economic recession in Alberta which has resulted in, among other things:
(1)	Alberta having the worst performance of any provincial economy in Canada which the Conference Board of Canada has estimated will shrink in over-all terms for the second consecutive year;
(2)	a loss of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the oil and gas industry;
(3)	leaving Alberta farmers with 23 per cent of Canada's outstanding farm debt;
(4)	causing on average 600 new families per month to be placed on welfare; and
(5)	Alberta having the highest per capita suicide rate in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) had the floor. I advise the Hon. Member that he has approximately four minutes remaining.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the debate. When we rose at one o'clock I was discussing the matter of using nice, clean British Columbia and Alberta coal for thermoelectrical production in Ontario rather than the dirty coal that comes in from the United States in enormous volumes.
May 21, 1987

This is an issue that has concerned Albertans and British Columbians for many years. When one considers the large numbers of rail cars that are available, particularly with the haul-back capacity on CN and CP lines from British Columbia and Alberta, one wonders why large volumes of coal are not coming from eastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta to feed the electrical requirements of Ontario. One would have thought, with 20 Members from Alberta sitting on the government benches, that some efforts would have succeeded after two and a half years in Government in getting at least the occasional new carload of Alberta coal moving along those lines to provide good, clean electrical power to the Province of Ontario.
Even though we have seen occasional press releases and heard occasional murmurs from Alberta Members, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), nothing serious seems to be in the works. In fact, the Government seems to have buried the issue again. It is another example of Members on the government benches being strangely silent on an issue that could provide thousands of new jobs and new infrastructure in Alberta.
Other Members have raised the question with regard to the Elusky upgrader at Lloydminster, which is a promise by the Tories that was heralded throughout Alberta during the election campaign but has not been fulfilled. The estimates are that some 5,000 Albertans could obtain employment in the development of that heavy oil upgrader at Lloydminster. Once again, government Members are strangely silent and incapable of making the Cabinet understand the importance of providing development initiatives in the West, particularly in Alberta.
Over the years the Government of Alberta invested a great deal of money in the Heritage Fund. However, those funds are tied up in loans to other provinces and therefore not easily tapped by the Government of Alberta in order to provide the required revenues to put people back to work. When the province was awash in oil money during the 1970s and early 1980s, one would have thought that a Government with some vision would have provided for a means of putting those funds into development activities.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, tourism held one of the greatest potentials for Alberta. Considering the hundreds of thousands of tourists who come from the United States, Japan and elsewhere, perhaps greater initiative could have been taken with the Heritage Fund moneys to develop the kinds of facilities that would have attracted tourists to stay in Alberta longer, and to develop additional sectors within the Alberta economy in anticipation of the cyclical ups and downs that we all recognize occur in the energy sector.
No one expected such a prolonged downturn at this time, and certainly the diversification of the Alberta economy should have taken place during the good years so that these lean years would not have been so harmful as to force 600 additional families every month onto welfare in Alberta.
Supply
I am pleased to speak up for Albertans and let them know that there are Members in the House who are prepared to speak up on their issues and try to find solutions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Drummond (Mr. Guilbault)-Agriculture-Marketing of incubated eggs-Government position; the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins)-Canadian National Railways-(a) Future of railway lines in Ontario and Quebec, (b) Reported abandonment of effort to attract new traffic; the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)-Farm Credit Corporation-(a) Ending of moratorium on farm foreclosures, (b) Request that Government establish land bank rental system.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Waddell:
That this House expresses its disappointment with the Government for its failure to deal effectively with the severe economic recession in Alberta which has resulted in, among other things:
(1)	Alberta having the worst performance of any provincial economy in Canada which the Conference Board of Canada has estimated will shrink in over-all terms for the second consecutive year;
(2)	a loss of 50,000 direct and indirect jobs in the oil and gas industry;
(3)	leaving Alberta farmers with 23 per cent of Canada's outstanding farm debt;
(4)	causing on average 600 new families per month to be placed on welfare; and
(5)	Alberta having the highest per capita suicide rate in Canada.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, this is a long, dark day for the New Democratic Party. They began the debate with a resolution essentially based on innuendo, and have been continuing throughout the day on the same theme.
For a "peregrinatious" person such as the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) to raise the resolution

May 21, 1987
Supply
that he did, is a most perfidious act. The fact is that it is a mean-spirited resolution and one that is factually wrong.
The final comments of the Eton. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) are factually wrong. Tie says that he and his Party will stand up for Alberta. I suggest that the New Democratic Party utters nothing but nonsense.
He said that 21 Members of Parliament from Alberta are silent and do not really care about the use of low-sulphur coal in Ontario. He wears the masks of theatre and is a great pretender. Now he raises the mask and says he cares for Alberta. That is false.
People on the Prairies, from grandfathers to children, know that there has been a history in western Canada of freight rate discrimination. Once that discrimination is removed, western Canada can have the industrialization of its raw products, of its coal and grain, and the industrialization of flour mills and meat-packing plants.
The great pretender would have others believe that he is speaking for Alberta. Yet the New Democratic Party opposed Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 which would end, forever, the discrimination that stops the very activities that could be good for the West. That is the Party which opposes that forward move.
The last time members of the New Democratic Party ever knew anything about oil and gas, they were using Brylcream. The New Democratic Party pretends it is interested in agriculture, but it is the political Party which stands against property rights in the Constitution of Canada. It is the political Party which, in its Resolutions Reference Book, has as a resolution that it will set up a commission in Canada to regulate the size of farms according to regions across Canada. That is NDP policy.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member for Crowfoot is going to quote this information, he might once in a while want to show us these documents from which he is always quoting as he travels around Alberta and so on. He knows it is absolutely wrong and false. I think the Hon. Member should avoid putting this information on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the invitation of the Hon. Member for Skeena. I will just pick up one of those documents. I see two Liberal Members in the House. They and members of the Progressive Conservative Party will know that the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties have Party constitutions which tells us that resolutions of our Parties are recommendations to the Party Leader and advice to that Party should it become government. That is not a part of the constitution of the New Democratic Party. Its constitution says that resolutions passed by its members are binding on the
Party. I know that is in the NDP constitution, and so does the Hon. Member for Skeena.
He also knows there is a resolutions reference paper which, on its first page, says that while some of these resolutions were passed a few years ago, they are still binding. These are the resolutions which remain binding. I will read them for him. This is going to be great fun, Mr. Speaker, because one of the pretentions this pretending Party has about western Canada is that somehow the New Democratic Party would be the one which would serve the west. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, how it would serve the west. I am not going to re-read the resolution on agriculture right now. I will come to that one in a moment. One resolution is the phasing out of oil exports to the United States and a ban on exports of our current surpluses of natural gas. Here is a political Party which really favoured PetroCan. It bowed and kneeled and said: "Oh, thank goodness", when the new Petro-Canada Building went up into the skyline of Calgary. Five hundred acres of red marble were cut in Finland. There was no one to polish it in Finland or in Canada, so it was shipped by boat to Italy to be polished. It was brought across to the St. Lawrence River and across the country by train. This enormous monument built by the previous Government of Canada did not create a dollar. The NDP did not care that it never became more than 40 per cent filled with office space. It was an enormous waste of money. But yet these members of the New Democratic Party say: "We are here to save western Canada". Do not believe them, western Canada. They are not about to do that at all.
Let us go through a few more of these fine NDP resolutions. The price of oil products should remain below world levels. Is that not an amazing and interesting fact? Would the Hon. Member dare to stand up and say that the automobile industry should produce cars for the rest of the country below world prices? Is he about to stand up and say that the steel and iron ore of Ontario should be sold at below world prices? No, that Party pretends it is defending western Canada today, and as for the product which essentially comes from western Canada, it says: "Western Canada, you sell your product at below world prices and all the rest of the country will sell its product at fair market value. You regional folks away out there, your products will be sold at below world prices". They are the great pretenders.
The NDP also espouses the expansion of Petro-Canada by its purchasing of Imperial Oil to increase the activity of the provincial Crown corporation from the creation of a cooperative energy company.
Earlier this morning in this debate there was talk about interest rates. The NDP said its Party should take no credit for that, it was just a world condition. Anyone who believes that the debt of this country has no relationship to our interest rates is dreaming in technicolour. That debt is there because of overspending. Who could overspend more than the New Democratic Party? Who wants to nationalize CPR? Who wants to nationalize all the airlines? Who wants to nationalize the banks? Who wants to nationalize Imperial Oil? That Party
May 21, 1987

is not really interested in the creation of jobs, the generation of wealth and the employment of people. What it is interested in is the intervention of the state so that the state can come into the homes and rooms of our citizens and tell us there is something called government which can run our lives better than we as individual Canadians can. That is where the great pretenders really fall flat because they should know, if they do not, that there is no place in Canada which has a more intensive spirit of enterprise than western Canada. There may be lots of places which are equal, but there are none which are greater. To pretend that somehow members of the NDP want the state to roll all over them is simply a fabrication of the imagination.
It does my heart good to see the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) right in bed with the sheets pulled up tight around him with the CPR with respect to Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. For generations we have cried for that change in the west so we could keep our packing plants, our flour mills, our crushing plants and all of the rest. But the Hon. Member for Skeena asks, why not sell more coal? But his Party says no to the method by which we could sell the coal. It does not want any part of those two Bills which will bring about some freedom of opportunity for western Canada to develop its infrastructure.
Perhaps I can take a look at a few other resolutions, about which the Hon. Member challenged me a few moments ago. He wants me to read some agricultural resolutions.


James Ross Fulton: Point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Good. I will allow him his point of order.


James Ross Fulton: I wonder if this political giant from Crowfoot might have something to say about what he and his Government have done for Alberta. Or is he so simple-minded that he cannot possibly tell Albertans one thing he and his Party have done?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There will be time for questions and comments after the Hon. Member's speech. That, I think, is just debate. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot has the floor.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I might add that my neurons are not lonesome as might be the case elsewhere.
The Hon. Member for Skeena does not want me to finish reading his resolutions.


James Ross Fulton: That is because your Government won't do anything for Alberta, Arnie. Let's hear one thing.


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member wants to hear one thing. I will not give him one thing. If you will allow me the time, Mr. Speaker, I will give him enough things which have been done for Alberta to fill the rest of the day and half way into the night.
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Let's hear the best thing the Government has done for Alberta.


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and I were on a little chatter with CBC Calgary. I read out some of the NDP resolutions. What he said is on tape in Calgary. He said I was on a witch-hunt. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what will the average citizen in Alberta think about a person who was the Leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, who today is an elected Member of Parliament, who has a major part in influencing people about resolutions which are developed, who says, when you read his Party's resolutions as direct quotes in public so that Canadians can know about them, that I am on a witch-hunt? That is what the Hon. Member for Skeena is doing now. He does not like what I am doing. It must hurt.


James Ross Fulton: It is just that you have nothing to say, Arnie, you are a mental midget.


Arnold John Malone: Here is what we get if we had an NDP Government: "the establishment of industrial plants to be cooperatively or publicly owned for the processing of food and the manufacture of farm supply items in the regions of production."
Well, now, isn't that interesting. Now they want the Government to own these farm machinery plants and the supply outlets.
And get this: "the establishment of a public commission to determine a formula for farm unit size on a regional basis."
Did you hear any farmer stand up, Mr. Speaker, and applaud that? Let us take a look at another one. That Party espouses "taking into pubic ownership some existing farm supply retail operations, farm machinery assembly plants, meat-packing plants and canneries".
Well, Canadian farmers, there you go. The NDP can give you all Polaris tractors. Would that not be a real thrill!
The Hon. Member opposite asks what it is I am quoting from. Well, here it is, the NDP Resolutions Reference book, dated October 1986. Here it states:
This book contains those resolutions passed by New Democrats since 1961
which are still current today. That is, resolutions which have not been
overtaken by events or superseded by subsequent resolutions.
There they are, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you, when I finish reading this book to Canadians, the New Democratic Party will be at 2 per cent in the polls and no higher, if people are made to understand all of the stuff that is in here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: There are socialist Governments around the world, many of which are in northern Europe, but there is only one socialist Party in the whole western world that wants to get

May 21, 1987
Supply
out of NATO, and that is the New Democratic Party of Canada.
The Hon. Member opposite concluded his remarks in this debate by making the assertion that we have not done anything for tourism in western Canada. The first tourism sub-agreement ever signed with Alberta was one signed after we became the Government, involving an amount of $56 million.
It may be that the Hon. Member for Skeena does not know this, but we also committed $90 million to the second arm of the Trans-Canada Highway, the Yellowhead route. That should even benefit Skeena. But he closed his mind to that kind of information.
In the agricultural sector alone, 437 initiatives have been launched by this Government, to a total value of $5.88 billion. That is in the space of two years. I challenge the Hon. Member for Skeena or the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway to find any period in the history of Canada when that amount of money has flowed from the central Government of Canada to the regions, in this case to western Canada in large part-and they can index the money in any way they wish.
Under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, we have had record payments totalling $859 million. We had to pass two amendments to the Act in order to make those payments possible. This spring, there was $705 million allocated to interim payments; there was $210 million allocated to a drought assistance program. In addition to all of that, we introduced the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption.
Is it not interesting, Mr. Speaker, that while we were applauded all across the farming regions of Canada, the New Democratic Party, which pretends to be the great saviour of western Canada, came out in opposition to the $500,000 capital gains exemption, an exemption that is largely utilized by farmers and small business persons in Canada?
We have brought about a $100 million to $150 million savings on freight rate rollbacks. Had the formula put in place by the Liberal Government continued unchanged-and I know that conditions have changed-grain freight rates would be well over $11 a tonne today. As things stand, the freight rate barely touches $7 a tonne.
The fact of the matter is that the Hon. Member for Skeena has nothing to stand on at all when he tries to pretend that nothing is being done for western Canada.
In respect of regional development, we have had $370 million go to the western provinces. Three out of every four of the Alberta-listed companies have won federal government contracts, to a value of some $233 million: $50 million for the Yellowhead Highway upgrade; $50 million for agricultural processing; $40 million for northern development in the northern regions of the Prairies; $23 million for a federal forestry agreement with the provinces; and $22 million for the Lethbridge Animal Diseases Laboratory.
The federal Government also contributed 70 per cent of the $90 million cost of the Lloydminster upgrader research project.
The Hon. Member for Skeena has said this Government has not done anything. Well, if 70 per cent of $90 million is nothing, by golly, Sir, I want lots of nothing, because that kind of "nothing" sure is welcome in western Canada.
That is the kind of thing that this kind of tomfoolery that we are having in the House today-


Mr. McMillan:: Watch it!


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan).
As the Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member looks after national parks, and I know that he will do a good job in that respect insofar as Alberta is concerned. He will help us improve our environment and help us in enhancing our national parks. In doing all of that, I can tell you that Tom is not foolery; he is very wise.
I want to thank the NDP, Mr. Speaker, for having brought this silly motion before the House. It allows us to put on the record during the course of this debate what this Government has done for western Canada, and what it has done has been very, very significant.
It also provides us with an opportunity to remind the citizens of this country that it was the NDP and the Liberals who closed the door to economic development in western Canada, and to bring to the attention of Canadians what it would be like to live under the oppressive policies of a New Democratic Government.
Let me end on a point that I consider to be critical. There has been too much talk about doom and gloom in the west. In fact, the talk of gloom and doom is bringing about some actual doom and gloom.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there are persons who are resisting investing in western Canada because of the perception that things are bad, when in fact there is much that warrants optimism.
If we look at the statistics, the truth of the matter is that drilling activity has increased. Over-all activity in the energy sector has significantly increased. The notion that agriculture is in the doldrums is overstated. The fact of the matter is, overall income in agriculture has increased by more than 100 per cent since this Government took office. What has happened is that the grain sector has become greatly depressed.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that all of this talk of gloom and doom makes it more difficult for entrepreneurs and businesses in western Canada to attract capital. Even some members of the Alberta Government will admit that. Bearing that in mind, I ask people to act responsibly.
May 21, 1987

The Parties who are not in opposition drove $56 billion out of Alberta during the course of the National Energy Program, and they stand here today and complain that the Alberta Government is not looking after medicare in the way that it ought to. Well, had they left that $56 billion in the western Canada economy, the Alberta Government certainly would look after the needs of medicare.
They say that we are not doing enough for agriculture. Again, had the $56 billion that was taken out by the NDP and the Liberals been left in that economy, a lot more could be done.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal more that I would like to say, both in terms of what the New Democratic Party is and what we have done for the west. I shall conclude for now, but Canadians will be hearing more from me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), on a question or comment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the comments of my hon. friend from Crowfoot are very tough. It seems to me that he is being very critical of his fellow Albertans, who are turning in droves to the New Democratic Party. They have seen how the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has sold out western Canada. They have seen a Government which has not been very honest in terms of how it is perceived in western Canada. They have seen a Government which is doing everything to reward its friends through patronage and through cronyism in central Canada. They are objecting to that in the west.
The best evidence I have of that is the election of all those New Democrats in Edmonton in the last provincial election. There were 16 in Alberta. Most of them were in Edmonton. There is also the fact that the by-election in Pembina was almost lost at the federal level. A majority of some 30,000 went down to some 200. This is why more ordinary Albertans are voting for the people's Party. They are not voting for the big money Party in central Canada, the Tories; they are voting for the people's Party, the New Democratic Party of Canada. That is why the Tories are terrified of the NDP.
We had to bring forward this motion today because of the 21 silent Conservatives from Alberta; they are called "the Silent 21". In fact, I have received calls in my office saying "the Silent 21 will not raise this question. Will you guys raise it for us?"
The Hon. Member is a good friend of mine and a distinguished Albertan. He says that he has all kinds of sources and contacts. I have a very simple question for him. What will the western diversification initiative do for ordinary Albertans?
We have had one very competent Conservative Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona
Supply
(Mr. Kilgour), denounce the Conservative Party because it does not stand up for western Canada. He had the courage of his convictions. This is why he has received such a positive response from his constituents in Edmonton. They see him as the one exception to the "Silent 21". One reason he denounced his Party was that there was no action in the area of western diversification.
What will the western diversification initiative do for ordinary Albertans? The Hon. Member may not know much about it. I have lots of government documents-they are leaked to me all the time-on western diversification. When I speak later, I will reveal some of the contents of them. Since the answer is not in all the documents I have, I want to know what the western diversification initiative will mean to ordinary Albertans.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I find it amusing that a Member would pretend for a moment that he has all kinds of leaked documents but would find it necessary to ask questions about substance.
He started out in his preamble by saying that we had done nothing for western Canada. The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has great affinity for the pool system in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. I should like to read from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget as follows:
There's no denying that Canadian farmers have been receiving more public support than ever before. Last year Alberta producers received $470 million from three major support programs alone. In total about 17 per cent of total farm cash receipts came from government support programs in 1986 ...
These tremendous income declines would have caused a total collapse of western Canadian agriculture if the government support had been withheld.
Let us take a look at the enormous amount of money we have given. We must bear in mind that the big spenders who preceded us left us in a situation where one out of every three tax dollars is used to pay for interest on the accumulated debt. For the Hon. Member to pretend that we have done nothing raises the great pretention of the NDP, the "let's pretend" Party.
The truth is-and it is the statistic for which I was looking earlier-that total net farm income was up 176 per cent in 1986 over 1985. It is the grain sector that is down.
The Hon. Member asks what we will do. The truth of the matter is that we must put forth support to retain the agricultural sector until the basic fundamentals are looked after. In part the Liberals must share the blame. It started in the 1972 Tokyo Round of the Economic Summit when emphasis was not put upon agriculture. That changed in 1985 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made sure that agriculture was forced to the top of the agenda in Tokyo.
It was followed up by the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) at Punta del Este, Uruguay, when he forced agriculture on to the primary agenda of the GATT at Geneva.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville knows that just this week OECD countries said that the Canadians were right.

May 21, 1987
Supply
They are now looking at backing away from their extraordinary subsidization.
The Elon. Member asked what diversification would do. I have already mentioned in my speech what it has done for tourism. It will take us away from having only two boom and bust industries. Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, which the New Democratic Party opposes, will allow for the infrastructure to manufacture raw materials from the prairie regions to be enhanced. However, he opposes that. It is one way in which to develop a capacity for the western basin to produce its products.
It is rather naive to ask for the details on a document which is not yet before the public and on which we are still working. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that I do not have to go public to have my voice heard. I can, at regular meetings with the people who are drafting and writing this important legislation, make sure that western Canadian interests are being looked after. I see the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) is here. He is playing an active part, as are other Alberta Members of Parliament.
I am thankful that we are not on the opposition side and that we can do hundreds and hundreds of things to make western Canada a better place to live, despite two terrible world conditions which have driven down the price of petroleum and the price of grain. There is a great day coming in oil. We have now been six weeks at $19.50 per barrel. I say to the Hon. Member: "You just stick around".


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). He certainly enlightened us about the situation in western Canada, in particular the situation in Alberta.
He mentioned the National Energy Program which was brought in by the former Government and of course supported by the New Democratic Party. He also mentioned its effect upon western Canada. Perhaps he could take a moment to elaborate on some of its effects on the economy in western Canada, on the jobs that were lost, on what the Progressive Conservative Government did after taking office in relation to that program, and on the follow-up programs in the energy sector for western Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Program was a job-creation program by the Liberals-it created jobs in the United States, Venezuela, the North Sea, and Australia. It drove Canadian drilling rigs out of Canada; two-thirds of them left within the period of a year.
There is a great misconception in Canada that a drilling rig is a tower. To move a drilling rig requires approximately 16 very long, 18-wheeler tandem trucks. Each move costs about $500,000, yet three-quarters of our rigs were driven out of the sedimentary basin and headed for other countries. Head offices moved from Calgary to Denver, Colorado. One person who was a Member of Parliament moved many of his people
out. The environment in Canada was a losing environment, and it took $56 billion out of western Canada.
Today Liberal and NDP Members stand and say that the provincial Government should do certain things. They ask why we as federal people do not do certain things for the west. The truth of the matter is that much of the damage which has taken place is the direct result of that terrible, awful, unjust, unfair, wrong-headed, and bull-headed policy, the National Energy Program. It treated western Canada differently from other parts of Canada. It treated one sector of the industry different from all other sectors. It sucked out from one sector just short of $5 billion in taxation at one time. Now that figure is just a little over $400 million for the same sector, because fairness has been put back into the game.
In response to the question of my good friend from Prince Edward Island, let me say that it was a devastating sight. Over a mile and a half of trucks were lined up from Coutts, Alberta, to Sweetgrass, Montana. They were heading for the United States and taking our men and women with them. Jobs were leaving the country. It was a devastating day. The great pretenders are the New Democrats who have the audacity to come to the House of Commons and say that they are sticking up for western Canada. What a fa?ade, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Government and the Conservatives, every time they are questioned about the lack of support for the energy industry in Alberta, always refer to the National Energy Program. Certainly the National Energy Program had some detrimental effects on the energy sector. That was evident in the last federal election, and the Liberal Government cannot be said to have done very well in Alberta. But now we are three years into the mandate of the present Government and it is still talking about the National Energy Program, trying to get Albertans off the track. This Government has not only not supported the energy sector in Alberta but it has completely ignored it.
There have been some programs, some of which have been noteworthy, but all of them have come far too late and all of them implemented only because of political necessity.
We are talking today about a province which has an unemployment rate of between 10 per cent and 11 per cent. Alberta Members can say that things are looking bright. I can say that with higher oil prices things are looking a little brighter, but it does not mean that Alberta is out of the woods by any means nor can we take for granted that the economy of Alberta will bounce back. An awful lot needs to be done.
I am very concerned when I hear government Members saying that things are looking brighter and that is their defence for ignoring the problems in Alberta. It is wrong also
May 21, 1987

for Canadians in central and eastern Canada to point to the Heritage Fund and say that that is the answer. That is not fair to Albertans. Loans have been made to other provinces from the Heritage Fund. Those moneys are tied up for a considerable period of time. The Government of Alberta has put a great deal of the Heritage Fund into parks and hospitals, money which it cannot get out. You cannot sell parks and hospitals, but if you could, you would get very little in return. There is very little of the Heritage Fund that you can liquidate and use. It is a non-issue.
We have to look at the situation in Alberta as it is today, not to posture or to find some excuse and blame someone else. We have to look at the problems realistically. We have to take off the blinders and say that this is a concern which must be dealt with realistically and as soon as possible.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) talks about prior summits and about agricultural meetings. The problem is that the good friends of the Government, the Americans, have again let down the Conservative Government in the case of the wheat farmers. In order to fight the concessions given to farmers in the Common Market the Americans decided to subsidize their wheat growers, which put Canadian wheat growers in a very difficult position. You cannot say, "Those darn Americans are rascals. Look what they have done. Our farmers are really great guys and this should not have happened to them. There is really nothing we can do because it is out of our hands".
If the Conservative Government is conscious about the problems of the farmers as it says it is and puts their problems on the agenda as often as it has, why are other countries kicking sand in our face as never before? It is because the Government does not have any respect internationally. It is perceived that the Conservative Government wants a free trade agreement so badly that the Americans can do anything they want as long as they say that what they are doing will heighten Canada's chances of getting a free trade agreement. A free trade agreement would be nice if we did not have to sell the country to get it. There are a lot of things this country would like and a lot of things Canadians would like, but at what price? That of selling our country, our resources and our culture, of reducing our scope for making decisions on defence, on nuclear armaments, on submarines in the Arctic? We will stop being a sovereign nation if it is carried to the extent that the Americans would like to carry it. I am not being antiAmerican. The Americans are good neighbours, but the United States is a separate country, as is Canada. We have to have respect for one another. The respect Americans should have for Canada does not exist.
The problems in the energy sector at the present time are not, and I repeat, are not a result of the National Energy Program. When prices were higher, activity returned and reports from all of western Canada, including Alberta, were that there was going to be a boom. There was no talk in 1985 about the National Energy Program dragging down the oil and gas industry in western Canada. There was no talk of that at
Supply
all. But when the price of oil went down to less than $10 a barrel U.S., all of a sudden the problems were a result of lower world oil prices and the National Energy Program. That is not fair at all. It is not fair to the Liberal Party nor to Albertans. It is not fair to delude oneself that the National Energy Program today is in any way responsible for the problems in Alberta.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot talks about $56 billion leaving the Province of Alberta. His Government has been in power during this downturn in world oil prices. How much money has gone back into the Province of Alberta since this Government has been in control? The Government is so apoplectic about the word regulation that it just backed away completely from assisting the energy sector.
Look, for example, at the time sequence when world oil prices declined. They started to decline in January, 1986. Nothing happened. Month after month after month there was talk of doing away with the petroleum gas revenue tax.


Arnold John Malone: Who put it on?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: In August, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), was going to be in Alberta to announce the abolishing of the PGRT. He went out west and spoke about how serious the situation was in the oil and gas industry in Alberta and then proceeded to walk away. Why? Presumably because the Minister of Energy in Alberta said that he might be announcing the abolishing of the PGRT. The next month there was the by-election in Pembina and the Government candidate was not doing too well. All of a sudden there was a retrenching and a scattering of paper and bodies. There were meetings and out went the Minister of Energy to Alberta to announce the abandonment, the abolishing and the doing away with the PGRT. It is a funny sequence of events that that announcement just happened to be a few days before the Pembina by-election.
The situation continues to get worse. Why does it continue to get worse, Mr. Speaker,? Not because the situation changed. The situation in September, 1986, in December 1986, in January and March, 1987 is the same. The situation is deteriorating because it has gone on for a longer period of time. The downturn in the sector has continued.
Most of all what has been damaging has been the continuing uncertainty. The oil and gas sector does not know where it stands. It does not know if the Government is going to help. It does not know if oil prices are going to go lower, higher or remain the same. It cannot plan. It is a simple question of economics. When the industry was down you could not expect it to plan large investments. Yet that is not what the Government would have us believe. When it did away with the PGRT the Government said it expected the major oil companies to reinvest that money in the energy sector. The Government is like the guy who lost five dollars on a goal scored in the hockey game and another five dollars on the instant replay. Time and

May 21, 1987
Supply
time again we have seen that the multinational oil companies are not philanthropists. That is not a condemnation so long as you realize that they are multinational oil companies. They buy and sell oil and gas around the world. They do not become nationalists or philanthropists. They do not become an arm of the Canadian Government or society. We have to realize that, and for the Government to say what it did was naive and insulting to the people of western Canada.
In March the Government announced the exploration and development incentive program. It is estimated to be worth about $350 million. I think it will help exploration and development in the energy sector, and that is very important. While I do not think it is as good as others that could have been brought in, I support it because the Government is finally doing something for the energy sector. It is doing something for the small and medium-sized companies in that sector. That is very important.
There is a myth that when things were going well in Alberta a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon and invested money but they should have known better. That is a very unfair rap on the energy sector in Alberta. To say that when things were going better small and medium-sized oil companies should have known it was not going to last is wrong.
The major chartered banks invested millions of dollars in the energy sector. How can you say that about the small and medium-sized players and not about the banks? It is unfair to say these companies were all johnny-come-latelys. They are not. They have been in business since the 1930s and 1940s.
I talked to the president of one company which had been in his family since 1936. He told me he was going to have to lay off employees and it bothered him very much. It kept him awake at night. These people were not just employees. They were friends, he had known them and their families for years. That he would have to lay off some of them caused this man no end of concern.
I talked to a lot of people whose jobs were uncertain. They said they wanted the Government to tell them what it is going to do. If it does not want to help them, at least give them the courtesy of telling them that. If they are going to be laid off they want it done now so at least they have a chance to get a job. Given the uncertainty of the Government, later would be too late and the market will be filled with people looking for work. That is exactly what happened. Mind you, a lot of people have left the province, but a lot are still there, without jobs but with a great deal of uncertainty facing them in the future.
The price of oil has gone up, and I hope it goes up more because it is important to get a reasonable price so people can plan. If it does not go up, we have to do something. The Government did not do anything when it went down. Surely to goodness it will do something if it goes up over U.S. $20 a barrel. Surely it will plan and put some kind of safety net in place for the people of western Canada. Surely its inhibitions about regulation are gone now that it has brought forward the
exploration and development incentive program. Surely the Government realizes this is regulation.
The Liberal Party brought forward a cash flow stabilization program which we thought and still think was in the best interests of the energy sector. It did not go anywhere, largely because it was the Liberal Party that recommended it. That is the sort of silliness that goes on across the way.
Members opposite talked about improved drilling. I am going to read some figures that were given to me by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. In 1985 there were 12,564 wells drilled in Canada. That dropped to 6,400 in 1986. This year it is projected at 5,400, and that with the price of $20 a barrel. That may increase if the price increases, but there is no abundance of drilling activity in Alberta.
What about the Senate? To my knowledge no Members across the way have said they support a triple-E Senate. Westerners, Albertans in particular, are completely disillusioned because of that. Not only with the Conservative Party but with federal politicians in general. Being a federal Member of Parliament, that causes me a great deal of concern. I am pleased Albertans put forward this idea of a triple-E Senate. Had they not done so in the hope they will get a fair deal in Confederation in future, then they would be talking about separation and splinter Parties and other things which are not in the general interest of keeping this country together. To lose that valuable and beautiful province would be a tragedy. It is important that the Government treat Alberta fairly. Don't go making excuses or pass the buck. Treat them fairly. Recognize their problems and deal with them. That is the only thing they are going to understand. Fair treatment is the only thing you can expect anyone to understand.
Since 1972, Albertans have voted Tory almost exclusively. They had the right to feel they were going to get fair treatment, but they were ignored. They got platitudes, which only insults their intelligence. Is there any wonder they get angry?
This is a good motion because it puts forward some very important facts, and I hope the Government will listen instead of turning away and making believe these problems do not exist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comment? Debate.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). He said the National Energy Program did not cause the disaster we are faced with in the oil industry in Alberta today. Let me draw you an analogy. A fellow was walking across the road and was run over by an 18wheeler. He ends up in the hospital with a broken leg, broken pelvis, wearing a body cast, with a tube of liquid running into his arm. He starts to make a come-back. He gets healthier, but then he catches pneumonia and dies. By the Hon. Member's reasoning his death has nothing to do with the accident, it is the pneumonia that killed him.
May 21, 1987

Let us talk about some of the history of the oil industry and go back to where it started. Our problem commenced in 1973. At that time we had a minority Government propped up by the NDP which decided, as a temporary measure until January 1, 1974, to put a freeze on the price of oil. They do not do that with cod fish, zinc, cars or lumber, but the minority Liberal Government of the day, aided and abetted by the NDP, did that to oil.
I am in the oil industry and saw the result of that. From the time that temporary measure was introduced in 1973 until it was taken off by the Progressive Conservative Government in 1985, S56 billion of revenue was lost. That money would not go only to the oil companies. In the Province of Alberta 81 per cent of the mineral rights are owned by the province. For every barrel of oil which comes out of the ground on which the province owns the mineral rights, it gets a percentage. From 1973 to 1975 the NDP-Liberal coalition stole $56 billion from the people of Alberta.
As a small oil producer I felt like a second-class citizen in my own country. I could sell a barrel of oil for only half as much as someone else would get. Oil came on to the Montreal market which was produced for the benefit of a dictator in North Africa who got the full price for the oil. He took his money and marched his army into Chad. He had hit squads running around Europe, which is well documented. However I, as an oil producer, and everyone like me, were second-class citizens and could get only half as much as that person. It is just unbelievable.
The next step was the national energy policy. On October 28, 1980, a day of infamy, they continued the low prices. If we were supposed to get $20, they would give us $10. They had a bunch of new taxes. There was the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the petroleum compensation charge, the natural gas and gas liquids tax and the incremental oil revenue tax. There was a whole basket of nomenclature, bureaucracy and paper shuffling to tax this resource. No other resource was taxed like this. Essentially they chose one segment of Canada and treated it differently because it produced that product. We got hammered. The PGRT alone took $10.5 billion, and that was only one of the taxes.
These geniuses said that the price of oil was going to continue to go up and up and up. In 1980 they said that they expected that the price of oil would be $63.20 today. It is $24.87. It is less than 40 per cent of what they thought it would be. That was not good enough. A year later they said that it would be $77.50 today, and it is less than $25.00.
There was no flexibility in the system. They expected something to happen which did not happen. Instead, as my hon. friend, the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) mentioned, the rigs left. There were lost jobs and opportunities. In 1984, Alberta and all of Canada repudiated these socialists and put the Progressive Conservative Party into government and we started cleaning up.
Supply
Within half a year of being in power we signed the Western Accord which got rid of the incremental oil revenue tax, the petroleum compensation charge and the natural gas and gas liquids tax. The Government set up a phase-out for the infamous PGRT. It also allowed oil to be sold at the market price, which was something new. In the fall of 1985, a little over a year after taking office, we began to deregulate the gas markets, and are still in the process of doing that. The national energy policy taught us that Government is not smart enough to make these prophecies. That is a perfect example of what these people did in 1980.
As my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys pointed out, in January, 1986, the price collapsed. By February the price was down to about $25, and on April 18 it was less than $16. It went down from $40 to $16. The Member said we did not do anything. In fact we addressed the problem by increasing the tax credit. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the tax credit meant that producers did not have to pay the first $250,000 of tax. The Government increased that amount to the first $2 million of tax. It was the smaller companies that benefited. We decreased the number of companies paying this tax to 45. The Member said we are sitting on our hands, but we did all of that within three months. In less than nine months, by October 1, we removed it entirely, which added hundreds of millions of dollars to the cash flow of the oil industry. We recognized the problems.
We also retroactively changed the PGRT on royalties, which helped the smallest and most Canadian entrepreneurial startup companies. Six million dollars went back into the pockets of the smallest Canadian companies. They were happy and very thankful.
What does all this lead to? I will refer to Oil Week, which is one of the bibles of the western oil patch. I recommend that the socialists take a look at it once in a while. They might learn something. This is the issue of Oil Week from May 11, 1987. It says:
A surprisingly bullish projection for the level of exploration activity in the last three months of 1987 has been made by analyst John Lloyd-Price of brokerage house Gordon Capital Corporation.
Lloyd-Price says-the rig count could hit 200 in the third quarter and 450 by the fourth.
He says further:
-if 450 (rigs) are put to work that will probably mean the industry will be fully operational.
We also implemented the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program on April 1 of this year. That measure will help the smaller companies, compared to the PIP grants under the national energy policy of the Opposition, which did not help the little guys but assisted the big companies like Dome. Dome received subsidies of $1.28 billion in taxpayers' money under the Petroleum Incentives Program.
According to our initiative, no company can receive more than $3.3 million, so that it will benefit the smaller companies.

May 21, 1987
Supply
I am flabbergasted that the New Democratic Party would have the gall to introduce this resolution after it created most of the problems. The New Democratic Party Policy is to stop oil exportation to the United States. The industry is sick because of the collapse of the price of oil, yet the NDP would cut off its life blood by preventing the sale of oil to the Americans, thereby greatly reducing the cash flow.
Let us consider the impact of the NDP policy not to sell gas to the Americans. There will be no cash flow, no jobs, no drilling and more unemployment. I do not understand their logic.
I want to talk for a moment about the Dome-Amoco merger. The New Democratic Party suggests that the Government should take steps toward Canadianization. There was a Canadian offer, but the NDP forgot to mention that such an offer would cost the taxpayers of Canada in excess of $600 million, an enormous expense to every man, woman and child in Canada. Furthermore, they forgot to tell us that the Canadian offer would consider the Dome Petroleum debt to the Government of Canada as an unsecured credit. This means the Government would receive 30 cents on the dollar for a $180 million loan, costing us another $120 million. They also forgot to tell us that the Canadian bid is 25 per cent sponsored by a foreign national oil company.
If we were to follow the New Democratic Party policy to assist Dome stay Canadian by absorbing $600 million of taxpayers' money and forgiving a debt of some $120 million, we would be assisting the Canadian banks. In other words, the socialists will help bail out the Canadian banks that they also want to nationalize. First, they will make the banks wealthy through this deal. Their policies do not make sense.
Let me summarize what the Government has done. We established a free market-place for oil and are working on the same initiative for gas. We need not be second-class citizens because we can sell our products at the same market demand price as any other commodity from Canada.
We acted on the petroleum gas and revenue tax by modifying it within three months after the collapse of oil prices and by removing it entirely within nine months. We came to the assistance of the smallest producers by applying this measure retroactively. We introduced a $350 million program to create jobs. We helped the small companies in that sector in order to get the rigs working, so that the well-known analyst to whom 1 referred expects full utilization by the fourth quarter of this year. That is the proof that our measures are working.
We also signed the Atlantic Accord, bringing Newfoundland and Nova Scotia on side.
I am proud of our record and of being able to play a minor part in working toward these goals. We realize there have been tough times, but we recognized the problems, consulted with the industry and the provinces, and found solutions jointly. I am pleased that we can now see some results and that even better results will appear in the days to come.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) talks about the man who was hit by the truck, recovering in hospital, then dying of pneumonia. The reason he died of pneumonia is that the Tory Government opened the windows and took away all his blankets.
The Government has pulled the bottom out of the energy sector and is trying to blame it on the National Energy Program. It is using the NEP as an excuse for doing nothing.
One of the few steps the Government took was to deregulate natural gas last fall. I suggest that the Hon. Member ask the producers about the benefits they are receiving from the deregulation of natural gas. He will discover that they are being forced to sell their natural gas for less than their production costs, that some of them must work for the banks, and others who are selling their product at a very low price in order to pay the banks are hurting those viable operations. They are doing away with the adjacent border price, which is only helping the Americans.
Will the Hon. Member tell us how deregulation of natural gas will help those producers who are selling their natural gas for well under what it costs them to produce it?


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys amazes me. Essentially, four things affected the natural gas industry. It began in 1973 when the price was frozen and the industry and the provinces, as well as the people, were deprived of $56 billion in income. Second, the National Energy Program was implemented in 1980 and the petroleum and gas revenue tax alone took $10.5 billion from the industry.
The Member represents a Party that was in government when the prime interest rate soared to 23.75 per cent in 1982.
Finally, just as the industry was getting back on its feet as a result of some positive initiatives by our Government, there was a collapse in the oil price. It was the 18-wheeler, driven by the socialists, that ran us over, and they have the audacity to say that somebody left the window open! The Liberals said the price of oil was supposed to be $77 a barrel, but they made a slight miscalculation. It is only $24, less than a third of their prediction.
I did not see them in 1982, 1983 and 1984 taking the PGRT, the incremental oil revenue tax, and the petroleum compensation charge and all the alphabet soup of charges off when the price did not go up to the level it was supposed to. Yes, we have some tough times ahead of us, but we are opening up new markets. We are learning new skills. We have a skill called "selling". We are moving gas into the California market which has not been touched. We are moving gas into the mid-western market, the Chicago, Milwaukee area, which we have never serviced before. We are breaking in new areas and competing.
May 21, 1987

The lower price of oil is benefiting the people of central Canada. We are gradually getting the volume up so that we are partly offsetting the loss in price by volume. We know where to find gas. There is lots of it out there. But we have been hampered. We have had our arms tied behind us and a gun put to our head. Finally, in 1985, we took the shackles off the oil industry and gave it free rein. It is learning about freedom. The drilling statistics and projections by the well-known oil analyst, John Lloyd-Price, is just another indication that we are doing what has to be done and doing it properly and well.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment. I know many Members from Alberta would like to join in this debate and tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada just what these so-called "Silent 21" are doing for the Province of Alberta.
I thought, as a Member from Ontario, that it might be worth-while for me to explain some of the things that Members from Alberta do. Last Thursday I was one of a group of Ontario and Quebec Members of Parliament who were taken to Alberta and given tours of the oil industry. We met with people out there in Bonnyville and Fort McMurray. We were taken out to Alberta by these Members of Parliament who are doing what is right. We learned an awful lot about the oil industry. I took a silly little test before I went out west. I only got 10 questions out of 20 right. Today, however, I could get 20 questions out of 20 right. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that Members of Parliament from Alberta are working on behalf of their constituents.
When I met with members of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade in Bonnyville, they told me they were pleased. In the Town of Fort McMurray, 35,000 people of the average age of 24, young men and women, are putting their trust in Members of Parliament, who are doing a fine job for them and they know it.
I can also say that through New Canadian technology, the price of manufacturing a barrel of Syncrude is down to, I believe, $10.60, and we are told they can take it down lower. They have done this through the initiative of the private sector because the Alberta Members of Parliament have made it possible for them to do these things. I think we should all stand and congratulate the 21 Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, after the next election and redistribution, there will not be 21 Conservative Members of Parliament from Alberta, there will be 26 Conservative Members of Parliament.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like that Horner optimism.
What I would like to speak about is western diversification, but I want to make a couple of comments before that. My friend from Mississauga mentioned "the silent 21". He refers, of course, to Conservative Members of Parliament from Alberta. Perhaps that should be amended. You are in the chair, Mr. Speaker, so it makes it difficult for you to speak
Supply
out. The courageous Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) has already spoken. So I believe we are down to a Silent 19. We have heard Conservative after Conservative say that the big problem in Alberta was the NEP. They are living in the past as always, looking backwards. I wonder how long they are going to keep on doing that. I remind this House that I too voted against the NEP. If the records were checked, one would find that our Party voted against the NEP. I thought there was too much of a federal tax take in the NEP and I voted against it. The Premier of my province, Allan Blakeney, spoke out strongly against the NEP in terms of the federal tax take. I think the record should be clear on that.
In terms of whether or not there was enough public ownership, that is where I disagree with my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon). He thought there was too much public intervention. I did not think there was enough public intervention. That is because he is a capitalist and I am a socialist. We have this difference. I thought there should be more public intervention in the oil industry.
Petro-Canada should have been started sooner. It should have been a lot larger than it is today. That is a tradition we have in Saskatchewan. Under Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney, Saskatchewan was one of the most prosperous provinces in the country. It never ran a deficit. We have a lot of public ownership in uranium, oil and potash. I am proud to say that Saskatchewan has the biggest potash company in the world under public ownership. I am proud to see the head office in Saskatoon. I am also proud that the people of Saskatchewan support greater public ownership, greater co-operative ownership of the resource industries. Those resources are here for us, the people of Canada, not the multinationals.
I want to see a bigger and stronger Petro-Canada, and I will fight very hard for that. I know the people of this country are behind me when I say that. I speak with perhaps the value of experience. I remember when the Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister for a short period of time. He wanted to get rid of Petro-Canada, to abolish it, and the people of Canada rebelled.
I respect my friend from Calgary. He has the right to say he does not like Petro-Canada or public ownership and that kind of thing. I am just saying that it is not just a small number of people who want a strong Petro-Canada; it is the majority of the people in this country. That feeling was so strong that that Conservative Prime Minister was driven from office after nine months. After the election, public opinion was so strong that the Hon. Member for Yellowhead, who is a good friend of mine, and the Conservative Party changed their policy about Petro-Canada and decided they would keep Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation. That just shows how strong that feeling was in this country.
When we start talking about public ownership, I make it very clear that I will fight very hard-and I know the majority of the people in this country are behind me-to make sure there is a strong Petro-Canada. I thought from the beginning

May 21, 1987
Supply
that instead of just relying on small oil companies we should have taken over Imperial Oil and started off making Petro-Canada the biggest oil company in this country. I am sure that will be my objective and that of my Party, and I know my constituents are behind me on that.


Jack Scowen: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) does not like that. I suppose he is quivering, I am not sure. Even his Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan has not dismantled the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. His Conservative Premier has not dismantled Saskoil, a Crown Corporation. His Premier has not privatized the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.


Paul Gagnon: He is selling shares of Saskoil.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is selling some shares of Saskoil, but the Government retains control with the majority of the shares. But it has not privatized at all the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, and a number of other Crown corporations, because they are popular. The people of Saskatchewan know that this is a way of keeping Saskatchewan money in Saskatchewan for our future. It is only with a Conservative Government that that kind of thing has started to go astray.
We now have in our province the biggest deficit we have ever had in the history of our province. The Hon. Member for Mackenzie himself is even embarrassed at times to be a Conservative because of that massive deficit. That is also happening in Alberta. That is why Albertans are massively turning away from the Conservative Party and looking at the NDP, because they know who is speaking for Alberta. They know the Conservative Members speak for big oil in Alberta, but they want to know who is speaking for the average Albertan.
In a Pembina by-election they said by the thousands that the New Democratic Party is speaking for ordinary Albertans and they said in the Alberta election last year that the NDP is speaking for ordinary Albertans. The Progressive Conservative Members from Alberta, Mr. Speaker, know that to be the case, and that is why they are starting to panic, as evidenced by their recent strategy meetings in respect of the NDP threat, this great socialist threat. They are actually holding meetings on it. They are starting to panic. They know that their voters are being turned off.
One of their Members had the courage to speak out, the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I have here an article from The Globe and Mail of April 25 last headed: "Disgruntled Tory Kilgour buoyed by voters' support". Let me read just a little from that article. I know that Albertans agree with the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. It reads:
Disaffected Progressive Conservative David Kilgour said yesterday that a oneday visit to his south Edmonton riding had convinced him that he had done the
right thing when he spoke out three weeks ago about Western alienation and corruption in the federal Government.
Let me remind Hon. Members that this is David Kilgour speaking, not Lome Nystrom. I did not refer to corruption; I am merely repeating what he is reported to have said. I quote further:
"When you have a clear conscience and the support of your constituency, well, you can't ask for more than that," the Edmonton-Strathcona MP said before returning to Ottawa last night. "I feel completely vindicated."
More than 1,000 calls and hundreds of letters of support had been received and they were still coming in. Meetings with constituents in his riding office and in restaurants in Edmonton had also been overwhelmingly supportive, he said.
"I've only been saying what Canadians are saying across the country," said Mr. Kilgour, who was first elected to Parliament in 1979. "We want a clean, open government and help for Alberta from our brothers."
That is a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament saying publicly, Mr. Speaker, what I know many Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament feel privately. That is why I say: Why doesn't this silent block of Conservative MPs speak out? Who speaks for Alberta, other than the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and of course you, Sir, who sits in the chair?
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that we in the New Democratic Party felt obliged to introduce a motion highlighting the fact that the economy that is in the most trouble in this country is that of the Province of Alberta, according to the Conference Board of Canada.
Albertans are alienated from this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). They are really wondering whether or not they can trust this Prime Minister. They see a Prime Minister who, as the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona has said, is knee deep in patronage, who is involved in cronyism in terms of whom he appoints to government jobs and positions.
It is for that reason that Albertans are turning to us to put their arguments forward on the floor of the House of Commons.
One thing Albertans want is a western diversification plan. I note that my good friend, the Member for Calgary North is quoted in a very credible newspaper, the Calgary Herald, back on April 16 as saying that he "would have liked to see the strategy unveiled 'yesterday'"; and the article goes on:
-and Calgary South MP Bobbie Sparrow said "the sooner the better."
Some of the Albertan MPs, too, are obviously unhappy that there have been delays in the announcement of the western diversification plan.
I have had the opportunity recently to talk to some people who have some knowledge about this particular plan, and I wish to put a few things on the record today.
The plan has been delayed. First of all, we had the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and his office saying, time and time again, that the plan was "coming soon" or "in a few weeks". Speculation was that it would be announced in March, and then again in April, and then again in June.
May 21, 1987

The evidence we have is that this plan will not be announced for a number of weeks yet.
I have here a copy of a draft letter, a letter drafted for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote). This is a draft letter that was supposed to have gone out to 30 business leaders in western Canada. As of noon yesterday, it had not yet gone out, according to my very reliable sources who have given me a copy of this particular letter.
In this letter, the Minister points out that "executives from leading firms across western Canada will be contacted shortly by officials of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to arrange a mutually acceptable time for an intensive consultation on opportunities for diversifying the economy of western Canada".
I am very happy that they are doing that, Mr. Speaker, but again the whole process has been delayed many, many weeks.
The letter goes on to say: "As Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I am now launching a major consultation effort with the private sector to move toward this objective. These consultations will provide an opportunity for Canadian industry, in partnership with Government, to identify major opportunities and constraints to diversification in the manufacturing and service sectors in western Canada, and the measures industry and Government might initiate to take action on these opportunities and constraints".
As he states in his letter, Mr. Speaker, he is talking about diversifying, not only agriculture or mining and resources, but the manufacturing and service sectors.
After two or three pages, he concludes: "It is my hope that you will fully support this initiative by becoming a participant in exploring the opportunities that exist within western Canadian industry and in helping us to develop appropriate policies, programs and other initiatives that will assist in achieving the diversification objectives for western Canada."
This is a letter, Mr. Speaker, that, as of yesterday, had not yet gone out. So the whole process of consultation with the business community has not even started.
According to another leaked document, that process was supposed to have been completed by June 12. It was to start on April 22 and be completed on June 12. As things stand, the process has not even started.
Many times we have asked the Government, Mr. Speaker, what it is looking at in terms of diversification, and the lack of an answer in that regard I know is one of the frustrations of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I wish to announce in the House today the sectors that the federal Government is looking at. The Deputy Prime Minister will not provide us with this information.
The Government is looking at 24 different sectors, and I will list those sectors from this leaked document. The document is headed "Western Diversification Task Force Sector Teams".
Supply
Under high technology, the co-ordinator for which is an individual from Winnipeg, the sectors are: electronics, software, ocean industries, aerospace/defence, biotechnology, health care, advanced materials, and knowledge industries. Those are the sectors on the high technology side.
In manufacturing, the sectors that are being looked at are: wood products, petro-chemicals/plastics, food processing, which includes the sub-sectors of meat, fish, fruit and vegetables, and other; and also chemical and chemical products/fertilizers.
Other sectors include transportation equipment, clothing, machinery/metal fabricating, which includes agriculture equipment, oil and gas equipment, resource and other; and furniture.
Under services, we have tourism, cultural industries, and consulting engineers.
Those are the 24 sectors that the various sector teams are looking at in terms of the western diversification initiative that this Government hopes to launch at some point.
I want to give the House some idea of how these studies are being conducted. I will use the electronics sector in my example, but the same holds true for all 24 sectors.
For the electronics sector, they have a person in the regional office who has responsibility for the sector. In other words, he is the leader in respect of that particular sector. For the electronics sector, it is the British Columbia office of DRIE, and the man in charge is a Mr. J. Wiebe. Below that person they have regional participants, and in the case of the electronics sector, they are Mr. Girard of Edmonton, Mr. Jeanneau of Saskatchewan, and Mr. C. Wiecek of Winnipeg.
In addition, there is an industry participant, who in this case is Mr. A. Letendre; and finally there are sector consultants. In this case, the consultant is Touche Ross, represented by two individuals, Mr. Bruce Stuart and Mr. N. Webster.
I have outlined the 24 sector groups being looked at under the western diversification initiative, and if any Hon. Member has any questions in respect of who else is involved, I would be pleased, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, to provide the names.
I also have with me, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the questionnaire that is being used by the sector teams in carrying out their advance work for the western diversification initiative. The questionnaire is headed: "A Western Diversification Company Report". On here, of course, we have such things as the company name, the head office, and an index. The index includes such things as background information, market opportunities, technology opportunities, productivity opportunities, new products opportunities, capital investment and other responsibilities, sector issues and constraints.
It goes on for some 15 or 20 pages. It is a fairly elaborate questionnaire, aimed at gathering information on the 24 sectors that I listed, and constitutes the advance work for interviews with some 30 business people.

May 21, 1987
Supply
I wish I had a couple of hours in which to make my speech. However, I should like to refer to a 29-page report which was written on March 31, 1987. It is entitled the Western Diversification Company Report. It contains instructions for completing a company report form. It contains some very interesting things. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister I should like to announce that it is worth-while reading. I am sure some members of the Conservative Party would like to go through it.
It talks about Government as an institution. It talks about impact. It talks about jobs which could be created, jobs which could be maintained, and jobs which could be reduced or lost because of certain initiatives in western Canada. It also talks about time frame, the current stage of development, appropriate action, new product opportunities, types of action, other opportunities, rationale, impact, constraints on investment, and so on.
I see that I have only three minutes remaining. There are many things which I could mention, but I should like to refer to a copy of a document which I have in hand. It is called the Interview Guide Instructions. It contains the instructions for interviewers when they do their advance work on the western diversification initiative. Once again, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister let me say that this guide is being studied by public servants in their approach to the economy of western Canada.
The interview guide contains a number of things. It talks about the depth of the information. We all feel that the study should be a thorough one. The document indicates that unless the Government has a clear and specific understanding of the opportunities and obstacles facing an organization, it will not be in a position to respond with either immediate action or longer term policy initiatives.
As we can see from the document, the consultations are just in the preliminary stages. They have not had time to get into them. It is a real concern to those of us in the west. I am not an Albertan, but I am sure it is a concern to Albertans as well. The western diversification initiative has been delayed and stalled. We are now asking why it has been stalled or delayed. Certainly the guide instructions are available.
I also have another document which made itself available to me in some mysterious way. It is called the Western Diversification Initiative. On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and if I have time, I would like to announce the purpose of this initiative. Also on his behalf I would like to give the background to this western diversification initiative.
If I had the time, I would tell the House what is the issue. I would also indicate the federal government participation. That is an interesting one because neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister has announced it. I would also tell the House about the DRIE participation. Of course its participation is very key.
I also have the DRIE operational plan. It is interesting to look at it. If someone would ask me a question about it, perhaps I could read into the record some of the things which are being said in this regard. In addition I also have the objectives.
Does anyone in the House know what are the objectives of the western diversification initiative? I ask my towering friend from Red Deer that question. Does he know what are the objectives?
There is also the question of output. It is interesting because the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) said that diversification would be built upon agriculture, mining, resources, and so on. However, this document does not really mention that at all. In part it reads:
In the Western Diversification Initiative DRIE will lead intensive, targeted
discussions over a very tight time period with selected firms in the manufacturing and service sectors in western Canada-
Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Two weeks after the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) announced his Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, he announced that there would be a $3 million study into energy in Canada to be undertaken by Mr. Thomas Kierans of Toronto. He is a partner in a brokerage firm on Bay Street. By the way, he is the same man who is conducting the study into privatization which involves questions about the privatization of Petro-Canada. In my opinion it is a conflict of interest.
Although the privatization study was supposed to be reported back to the Government by April 1, we do not know whether in fact that occurred or whether the two studies overlap. Even if they did not overlap, there is still a conflict of interest.
Two weeks after the Minister will supposedly give $350 million to the energy sector over a period of time, he is now questioning the role of oil and gas in the whole Canadian sector. This does not even take into account another study, which was announced at the conference of energy Ministers in January, to determine which megaprojects will go ahead. That study is supposed to report back on July 1.
The Minister has initiated a second study which involves the first study. However, he did not wait for the first study to report so that the second study could have the benefit of the first study. Be that as it may, we also have the make-up of the Kierans Commission. It is holding hearings in Calgary on June 15 and June 16. Then it will hold hearings in other areas, ending with hearings in Montreal in December. Of course we have a Bay Street firm which is hoping to learn from the oil and gas industry during the June hearings, but those are the last planned hearings on the oil and gas industry.
May 21, 1987

How will the committee properly assess the problems in the oil and gas sector in its report when it is to report in January after having had its last hearings on that industry in June? Does the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville think that this will be a fair appraisal of the oil and gas sector? Does he think that it would be better at the end of its hearings for the committee to return to western Canada to hold additional hearings in Calgary, Regina, or Edmonton, to bring its information up to date, more or less?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think they should return to western Canada because I do not think it would be very fair for them not to do that. Unfortunately, I cannot make any announcement on behalf of the Government because I do not have that document with me.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It is the only one you have not got.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will try to obtain it and answer the question in the appropriate way. I could be very forthcoming if I had the document to work from.
The Hon. Member asked about the oil industry. Perhaps I should tell the House what is the purpose of the document entitled Western Diversification Initiative. It is as follows:
Progress towards diversification of the western Canadian economy, to position it to capture new opportunities in the face of severely deteriorating markets for most resource products, is a priority objective of the federal Government.
Of course in some way this may refer to the oil industry and the question the Hon. Member asked.
I do not see anything specific in the backgrounder in terms of oil, except for the fact that the following is mentioned:
The sharp decrease in world oil prices has resulted in a $5 billion loss in revenues to oil companies and a dramatic reduction in exploration and drilling activity resulting in steadily growing unemployment in the sector and related industries. The mining and minerals processing sector is suffering from oversupplied international markets, declining prices and high transportation costs. In the forestry sector further modernization is necessary-
There is a bit of a reference to oil and gas. Turning to DRIE participation, there might be some way in which DRIE will be involved, but I do not think so. All it says about DRIE participation is the following:
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is launching an intensive effort, in collaboration with the private sector, to identify the major opportunities and constraints to diversification of the manufacturing and service sectors in western Canada and the measures industry and government might initiate to take action on these opportunities and constraints.
Again there is no reference to oil and gas. Again I say that the western diversification initiative of the Government is not something which will involve the oil industry. We have had this tremendous build-up. People are expecting from a mountain to get a small molehill. This article goes on to state:
Diversification Strategies will be developed in each of four areas by DRIE-
DRIE is the key Department. It goes on to state:
-high technology industries, resource processing, traditional manufacturing, and service industries. These Diversification Strategies will include-
Supply
an evaluation of the diversification potential of the sector in western Canada, with explicit descriptions of any major impediment;
a review of possible options for promoting diversification, including a discussion of possible forward and backward linkages, and the public policy impacts associated with each option including estimated costs where possible; and
a recommended approach for diversification of the sector, including short, medium and long term measures that could be undertaken.
Under the DRIE operational plan, there is nothing about oil and gas. Again there is talk about manufacturing, the service industry, high-tech and resource processing, but nothing specifically about the oil and gas industry. The objectives are also stated here. I just do not have time to go over everything.
We in western Canada-and I know that of the people of Saskatchewan and, I am sure, of ordinary average Albertans- want some action very soon on western diversification. We want to know why there is such a major delay. I am told by reliable sources, whom I cannot name, that the delay is not because of the Public Service. The Public Service is ready to go. The delay is because of the slowness and the insensitivity of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to make a decision on behalf of western Canada.


Charles James Mayer: What a windbag.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is what I am told. I have lots of documents outlining the western diversification initiative. My sources are very reliable. It is about time western Canada knew why we are being shortchanged and why there is this insensitivity to the problems of the West. It is amazing when there are so many western Ministers and so many western Members of Parliament. That is why that Party is in third place and that is why that Party will suffer a humiliating loss at the polls in the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick).


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to spend the last eight minutes of this debate enlarging on some of the aspects about which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) spoke. It took him 15 minutes to read some of the things that we are attempting to do. It must be a source of great distress to him to know that we devoted months and months of work on our attempt. It took him a great deal of time to read things out, and yet he did not read everything. He does not know what it is all about, but he is praising us. I do not know why he speaks with such a forked tongue. While he is talking, we are doing things. The magnitude of the Western Economic Diversification Program-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Charles James Mayer: Sit down and let him speak.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I really hesitate to rise, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member accused me of speaking with a forked tongue. I

May 21, 1987
Adjournment Debate
do not know whether that is allowable but I have a lot of Indian people in my riding. I know that expression for Indian people is very much an insult. I would ask your guidance on whether or not those words should be withdrawn. I also know the meaning of the expression and the meaning is not allowed in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In order to allow the Hon. Member for Edmonton East to continue his debate, I would hope that he will withdraw his statement and carry on with the debate.


William Lesick: I withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker.
Albertans are very fortunate to have Conservative Members of Parliament representing them. We have three Ministers in the Government, namely, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), one of the most effective and powerful men in Parliament, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who is highly respected and who has worked most effectively on behalf of the Government of Canada, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). When have we had three Ministers so effective? We also have four Parliamentary Secretaries representing us and four chairmen of standing committees. We also have you, Mr. Speaker. You are respected by men and women throughout the land and in this House as well. When has Alberta ever been represented by men and women of such potency?


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


William Lesick: That is right. We have never had anyone who has been able to do so much for Alberta. We all heard the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) explaining what we have done for Alberta, for western Canada and, indeed, for all of Canada. We have had the greatest programs any Government has ever put into place in the short period of two years and seven and a half months. The Opposition is virtually green with envy because it could never have done anything to the extent that we have.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) kept asking why we are talking about the National Energy Program. Why is that so important? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. I am a veteran of the Second World War. Many of us were badly injured, many are still in hospital as a result. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) was in Edmonton last Thursday and Friday morning and saw the devastating results the NEP wrought six and a half years ago by the actions of the socialists and the Liberal Government. Buildings are still boarded up. People are still out of work. Twenty-five per cent of the businesses in the Peace River country went bankrupt. What does bankruptcy mean? It meant family break-up, alcoholism and life savings gone. The Opposition says we should not talk about those things because we are living in the past. We are suffering today because of the Liberals and their socialist friends who combined to work this devastation upon Alberta and on the energy industry.
Our Government has done many things. Let me talk about Edmonton and Edmonton East. We received $150 million for Canada Place. We were going to cancel that, but we went ahead. We spent six months studying Canada Place. Seven and a half million dollars was paid for flood relief in the middle of March. We had $130 million for government travel services to a consortium including Edmonton's own Marlin Travel. This is fairness. Four years ago CIDA purchases in Alberta amounted to only 1 per cent. Today they amount to 8 per cent. That is fairness. Alberta MPs are looking after the needs of Albertans. There was $197,000 for the Charles Campsell Hospital for a study on northern infant nutrition and $187,000 was given to the provincial museum for public programming. We are rebuilding the CN MacDonald Hotel and there is $600,000 for Edmonton's Winter City's Project.
The CF-18 contract has been absolutely marvellous for Edmonton. It means another 135 jobs in the next two years instead of releasing half of the workforce. The company is ecstatic. I talked to its president, I did not have to read the paper or reports. I knew this contract would be good. It was good for western Canada, particularly for Edmonton. We have looked after Edmonton, Alberta and western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 12 of Standing Order 82, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise an issue to which I referred last December 2 when I asked a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) concerning the marketing of broiler incubated eggs by a new national federal agency.
Members of the broiler hatching egg association have been asking for the establishment of such an agency since 1981.
Until December 1, 1986, all poultry farming sectors had their own marketing board, except the hatching egg sector.
On that day, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John Wise, announced the establishment of a national marketing board for broiler hatching eggs. The mandate of this new agency is to organize the marketing of broiler eggs.
May 21, 1987

This is a most positive measure which shows the political will of the Conservative Government to set up and maintain a production quota system. In fact producers are now in a position to benefit from the same national supply management opportunities as those available to other sectors of the poultry industry.
This federal agency allocates quotas to the provinces, thus making it possible to remove market surpluses and regulate imports and exports. This will prevent new import records caused by inflated demand or surplus inventories among distributing agents or producers. The ultimate result should be increased efficiency and productivity, which in turn will contribute to even out the ups and downs of production operations and enable all firms concerned to make savings in the long run, even though the new system will discipline them at the outset.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the establishment of such an agency, because after many years of active representations from the Broiler Hatching Egg Producer Association of Canada, again it is this Government that, within a short time, succeeded in establishing that new agency.
I am all the more pleased since my constituency of Drummond has hatching egg producers, and a famous hatchery in Wickham, namely Boire Brothers which, as the name implies, is a family business producing 500,000 chicks a week, of which 430,000 broiler chicks and 70,000 layer chicks.
The total Quebec weekly production is two million chicks, which means that Boire Brothers' production in my constituency accounts for 25 per cent of the total Quebec production.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important industry in my constituency, generating as it does 95 direct jobs and some 15 indirect jobs, in addition to injecting into the regional economy a few million dollars' worth of investment. You will appreciate what such an industry in the farming sector can represent for a small village, a constituency or a whole province.
During my election campaign, in the summer of 1984, I was made very much aware of the problem by farmers, and I was committed to support their cause and that of the 100-odd quota holders in Quebec, who produce some 115 million hatching eggs, worth over $25 million a year.
What is of concern to me, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to put the question to the Minister of Agriculture or the Parliamentary Secretary who is present in this House: Will a free trade deal with the United States put that national marketing plan in jeopardy? I am expressing the concerns of producers.
Indeed, egg imports reached the 19-million level in 1985, and if the situation is maintained or grows worse after a free trade agreement, Ontario and Quebec would stand to suffer the most.
I should remind the House that Canada's total weekly production amounts to 6,181,000 chicks, including 1,980,000 in Quebec, which I suggest is very high.
Adjournment Debate
Surely the Canadian agricultural community cannot afford to lose a sector which brings in more than $100 million a year and provides in excess of 2,000 jobs.
Let us not forget that hatching egg production is the first stage of all poultry farming operations. If imports are not controlled right from the first link of the chain, the entire agricultural sector will feel the impact.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain how our Government will protect the situation of the Canadian agricultural community? Or could our Government take longterm measures likely to enhance the quality of our farm products and pave the way for our agriculture to compete with American producers?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before answering this question, I would like to say that the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) is to be commended for his knowledge of this question and for the very real interest he has shown for local issues with a national and provincial dimension.
On November 27 last year, the Minister signed the proclamation creating the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, and on December 1, 1986, the Minister announced the creation of this agency.
Mr. Speaker, I know that recently, Alberta signed an addendum to the federal-provincial agreement. Alberta's producers represent 13 per cent of production. The provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario, whose producers represent 66 per cent of production, have already signed the agreement.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the Government has fulfilled another policy commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election, namely that we would support Canadian farmers in the development of their own marketing plans.
This Government acted quickly to meet producer desires. The creation of this agency took a little over three years. In contrast, the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, the last one created, took four years to establish, from the start of public hearings to its proclamation late in 1978.
The program will not, however, establish prices. Pricing will remain as it is now, at the provincial level. Similarly, each province, not the National Agency, will assign quota to each individual producer.
This provides for a flexible system by encouraging the hatching egg board in each province to meet the marketing conditions as necessary.
The program does not include import controls. Currently, hatching eggs and chicks can enter Canada in any amount provided that the import tariff is paid. The current tariffs are 2.5 cents per dozen hatching eggs or 2 cents per chick. The chick tariffs represent about 6 per cent of the farm value of the chicks. At the end of 1986, imports of hatching eggs were 14.9

May 21, 1987
Adjournment Debate
per cent of total production compared to 29.9 per cent in 1979, a drop of 15 per cent.
While I do not have an analysis of the impact of free trade negotiation on broiler hatching egg production, its effect would be, at most, the removal of the tariffs. Canadian farmers have been generally increasing their share of the domestic market because of the high quality of their products and their proximity to markets.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FUTURE OF RAILWAY LINES IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC. REPORTED ABANDONMENT OF EFFORT TO ATTRACT NEW TRAFFIC
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on December 16 in this House I raised an issue with regard to Canadian National Railways which is of great regional importance to the Ottawa Valley and, indeed, all of eastern Ontario and part of western Quebec. It dealt with the issue of a document by CN Rail, dated September 25, 1986, which was brought to the attention of the Standing Committee on Transport last fall. It listed a number of lines that would be closed.
To our great dismay, it mentioned the Beachburg subdivision, which is the 163.9 mile section of the main line of the CN track from Ottawa to the hamlet of Brent, in the middle of Algonquin Park. It also mentioned the Alexandria subdivision, which is a distance of 57.7 miles from Glen Robertson, just inside the Ontario-Quebec border west of Montreal, to the City of Ottawa.
There is one very serious problem with this. It is that over the past number of years, Canadian Pacific Railway, whose line also goes up the Ottawa Valley, has been using the CN track between Ottawa and Montreal. If CN abandons its rail line between Ottawa and Glen Robertson, the Alexandria subdivision, of course CP will have no line on which to run. Not only would we in the eastern and southern part of Ontario lose the main line of CN, we would also lose the main line of Canadian Pacific. It will mean that the whole region from the Ontario-Quebec border near Montreal, right through to North Bay, will have no rail traffic at all. That is unacceptable.
On December 16, I asked a question about this of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). After laying the groundwork, I said, as reported at page 2162 of Hansard:
Is the Minister prepared to guarantee to Canadians that he will not abandon the regions of this country in favour of the large urban areas and the coffers of the CNR?
The Minister of Transport stood up and said:
Mr. Speaker, that is a guarantee that any Member of this House would be pleased to give. I certainly give it. My guarantee is that whether it is CN, CP, BCR or any other railway, they will not be allowed to abandon any rail lines, branch lines, main lines, any line or anything with iron upon which a train runs, without going through the proper procedures, without applying to the Canadian Transport Commission and without going through every last letter of the law.
That answer does not mean a thing. It may sound like a great answer, in that flashy fashion of the Minister in the House, but of course we know that those companies must go through the Canadian Transport Commission, it was simply a non-answer.
What is really disturbing is that at a meeting on January 14, 1987, a month after I asked the question in the House, CN put out yet another document. The document stated that "for the purposes of the preparation of the tactical plan", meaning the closing of the lines, "the following are the most likely possible outcomes of some rationalization alternatives currently under study by the rationalization task force of CN as of January 14, 1987". The document went on to state: "These alternatives are in addition to strategy invoked, with shedding traffic on 2,500 miles of the light density network". About 275 miles of that is in eastern Ontario.
It then went on to mention the Alderdale and Beachburg subdivisions. The Alderdale subdivision is that part of the main line of CN from Brent in Algonquin Park through to Capreol near Sudbury.
I will refer to what it says about the Beachburg line from Ottawa through to Capreol, including Alderdale. It states that the Steering Committee meeting discussed on January 14 assume no maintenance requirement from Portage du Fort, which is in the County of Pontiac in Quebec, effective January, 1988. It goes on to state that a section of the main line around North Bay will become industrial trackage, approximately 15 miles, and Ottawa-Portage du Fort will probably only have weigh freight services required on the same date.
This means that they will even withdraw the maintenance of the rail line, which will lead to more rail accidents.
Apropos to this, if this main line closes, it will mean that there will be something in the neighbourhood of 4,500 cars from one plant alone, the papermill at Portage du Fort, which will be thrown onto the highways of eastern Ontario and western Quebec. It is estimated that 14,000 transports will be required to haul what is now being hauled out of there by CN. That is only one. We have three more plants in Pembroke and a couple in Arnprior and the Renfrew subdivision which require service.
This is a very serious regional issue and we want more than the non-answers of the Minister of Transport. The railways of this country were built to serve the regions. Are we going to continue to say they are only going to exist if they run between the major centres? It is 192 miles farther from Montreal to Capreol, near Sudbury, via Toronto, where the main line with all this traffic will then go, and only 410 miles, 192 miles less from Montreal to Capreol. Hundreds and hundreds of carloads of chemicals and hazardous products are now being shipped over CN Rail. The CN plans to close down this rail line in
May 21, 1987

1988 and these products will then be going through the urban areas between Montreal right through the middle of Toronto, and from Toronto to North Bay.
Our fight is not just our fight alone. Our fight is also the fight of those urban communities throughout southern Ontario. The Mayor of Toronto should be in on this. The Ontario Government and the Quebec Government should be included. They are the ones who will have to provide the moneys for the rebuilding of the highways and all the expenses in order to take on these 14,000 transports, plus, from all the other areas in eastern Ontario and western Quebec. This issue is far from dead and cannot be accepted.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, as do all Hon. Members in the House, shares the concerns of the Hon. Member, particularly those of us who come from the regions. We all know the railways were built originally to serve this country, but it is true as well that the nature of the country has changed. We do have more extensive highway networks. As all Hon. Members know, CN finds itself in a very difficult financial situation. It is an established fact that CN has substantial surplus rail capacity. Two thirds of its trackage carries no more than 10 per cent of its traffic. Clearly, that cannot carry on. Clearly we have to find ways to ensure that the size of its plant is appropriate to the size of its business. CN has repeatedly stated that it does not want to lose business, and I think that is axiomatic. It has an investment there and surely it will make all sorts of efforts to try to preserve it and get a return on its capital rather than to abandon it. CN is continuing to examine ways to improve service to its communities. It is examining the kind of line network it will need and will be able to support in the market-place a decade from now.
The Minister was at the standing committee this afternoon for the estimates. My friend, in his seven minute presentation, did a fine job in setting out some of the broader socioeconomic context. I wish he had been there this afternoon to put that on the record because it was a good presentation. It may well be that the urban people should be involved in this and be prepared to indicate that they are prepared to face extra taxes. That is really what my friend is asking. He is asking the broad Canadian community to pay substantial increased taxes to keep a line going through a part of the country that is clearly not economical in itself. We on the Prairies are facing that same argument with respect to branch line abandonment on grain, which is very expensive.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the railway will have to apply to the CTC for permission to abandon each line. I think in a policy context, we have to face the reality that there may be lines which just have to go.
Surely our goal and objective is to provide a procedure, and we have done that under the proposed National Transportation Act. It will be substantially better than the old Railway Act.
Adjournment Debate
All three Parties have had input into the proposed National Transportation Act. There were a substantial number of amendments made during committee consideration, and it will come before the House very shortly at report stage. If my friend opposite looks at that legislation, he will see that there is a very sophisticated appeal process, a process that will, hopefully, protect the public interest. That is certainly the intent of the Bill.
Socio-economic matters, such as reducing traffic on our highways and restricting the transport of dangerous chemicals through urban areas, can be raised in the appeals process, and hopefully result in wise decisions in the context of the current economic climate, as well as changing demographic and economic infrastructures and the structure of the nation generally.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-ENDING OF MORATORIUM ON FARM FORECLOSURES. REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH LAND BANK RENTAL SYSTEM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker,
I rise as a result of some questions I asked of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on April 27 last concerning the Government's intention with regard to financing farm credit and providing a stable environment for farmers on the land at this point in time.
What had sparked the questions that particular day was the lifting of the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loan foreclosures. I was wondering what future policy the Government was going to be putting forward to provide for a viable agriculture sector and to provide some security of tenure for those either new to farming or continuing in farming.
The Minister at the time pointed out that the lifting of the moratorium was not something to be too concerned about as only 40 or 50 farmers would be losing their land as a result of Farm Credit Corporation foreclosure proceedings. While he did not say so, I believe he meant 40 or 50 farmers per month.
We know now, after analysing the situation and listening to Farm Credit Corporation personnel, that this coming year the Farm Credit Corporation will come into ownership of between 700 and 1,000 farm properties, about half of which they will receive by way of quit claim, where the farmer simply walks away and turns it all over to the Farm Credit Corporation, with the other 50 per cent coming as a result of actions taken and initiated by the FCC. Most will have gone through a debt review board process.
The fact is, the Farm Credit Corporation will be holding an additional 700 to 1,000 farm properties. We heard in testimony from FCC personnel today, for instance, that it has proven virtually impossible for the FCC to lease the properties it holds to existing farmers, and that is particularly true in western Canada. It is unable to get renters even at zero dollars per acre, because the land has been continuous cropped and has been left in bad shape.

May 21, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The FCC has chosen to in effect act as the farmer, hiring custom operators to get the land in shape. It of course has to pay the taxes involved. As a consequence, it is soon to become one of the nation's largest farming operations. At some point, it will have to reassess its position, in terms of whether it will try to lease the land out next year or to find a buyer, at almost any price. As of this year, it is still hopeful of recovering most of the debt against those properties. In most instances, that is an impossibility. Had the land been worth as much as the debt against it, nine times out of 10 the farmer could have continued the operation. He could not, and I suspect that the FCC is going to have great difficulty in reducing its losses on these properties.
They reported last year that they lost about $90 million in the writedown of debt as a result of these transactions and as a result of foreseeing the debt write-down which will be coming due this year. They want to provide a bit of a cushion for that.
My question concerning whether the Government was looking at a land-banking type of scheme or an equity financing scheme was based upon what I perceive to be a very real need in the country right now for some alternative to land ownership, so that farmers who are in financial trouble can continue to farm and that new farmers will have an option which will provide them not only with land but land which is affordable and provides some security of tenure.
1 know that the Farm Credit Corporation has been distributing numerous equity financing schemes to the provinces, to the farm community, and to some lending institutions. 1 also know that discussions have been ongoing.
1 have been told that it largely gravitates around whether the provinces are interested. The FCC has indicated that it believes the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are showing some interest in such a scheme and would be interested in having other investors, including a federal agency like FCC, involved to provide the necessary backing to such a fund, particularly in these times when no one knows how far is down in the farm land market.
The Minister pretended that the Government was not even considering any such proposal. Given the activities of his own Crown agency, the FCC, and given the advice of some members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, including the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig), I think the Minister should have been a little more forthcoming to the House. He should address the issue realistically. A very large problem is looming before us. If he does not have a policy on
equity financing or land-banking, he should present one to the House very soon.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the value of farm land has decreased. It is also true that this is more pronounced in western Canada than in eastern Canada because of the problems created by stiff competition in the international grain market.
The Canadian farming community has been supported by the Government as shown by a number of measures over the last two years. The nature of the collapse has been so dramatic that existing social safety nets which were in place for agriculture-and there is a substantial number of them- simply were not able to cope. The Government has had to step in. It has increased the nets by over 350 per cent, by literally billions of dollars.
However, that does not mean that Canadian society, which is really the taxpayer, must seek at all cost to keep all farmers on their farms under all circumstances. Agriculture is undergoing a major adjustment, as are many other sectors of the economy.
The reason is simply the 1972 to 1974 Liberal-NDP alliance which increased spending in Canada by virtually billions and billions of dollars. It drove up interest rates. It caused inflation. Farmers who paid 24 per cent interest rates are in deep trouble, as are other sectors.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That doesn't wash.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That inflation was caused by the Government of the day, by the Liberals who were held in power by the New Democratic Party. It was not my friend's fault. He was not in Parliament at that time.
Under the circumstances, it seems to me that it is the role of Government to ensure that those who have the required qualifications and wish to remain in agriculture have access to fair and equitable programs to improve their situation. The lifting of the FCC moratorium supports this thrust, because the Farm Debt Review Board is a mechanism to let a farmer in trouble appear before a group of his peers and have his say. His peers can say whether or not there is a chance for him. It is a good process, and I think it is a fair one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers