1988-01-18

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to 69 petitions, being Petition Nos. 332-3313, 3323338, 332-3371 to 332-3382 inch; 332-3415, 332-3423, 3323436 to 332-3469 inch; 332-3472 to 332-3475 inch; 332-3480 to 332-3487 inch; 332-3489 to 332-3491 inch; 332-3505, 3323514, 332-3519 and 332-3534.



RAILWAY SAFETY ACT


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-105, an act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour and, indeed, a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who indicate that the Conservative Government has really no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
The petitioners believe that the proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future; and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. Since they also believe that the trade deal denies Canadians secure access to the United States market, which was the key objective of all of these negotiations, they are asking that Parliament dissolve now and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to table a number of petitions from people from all parts of Quebec who are asking the Government to withdraw the so-called Bouchard Bill aimed at older workers-mainly workers in our shipyards-who have lost their jobs and as a result of this Bill will be penalized because they will not be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits. The petitioners are asking the Government to amend the Bill and allow older workers to draw their full unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Standing Orders, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Spadina and other districts in Toronto who point out that the trade deal between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States threatens the sovereignty of Canada, that the Prime Minister has no mandate to negotiate it, and that it will also reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social and cultural programs and would integrate us further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, the undersigned ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal

January 18, 1988
Order Paper Questions
and that this debate should result in a national general election before such an agreement is signed.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and responsibility to present a petition to Parliament signed by Canadians from Willowdale, Toronto, Montreal, Pierrefonds, Westmount, Laval, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Abbotsford, Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley, all in British Columbia, and Sudbury and Garson in Ontario.
This petition points out that the Conservative Government had no mandate whatsoever from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and, furthermore, the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions. Furthermore, this proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States of America.
Therefore, these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve now and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, according to the procedures, I have the responsibility to register with you a petition that has been signed by citizens of Canada from Toronto, Markham, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Ottawa and Brandon.
All of these people are asking that, because the Mulroney Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, and because the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canadians need, and because the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, Parliament ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national General Election before such an agreement is signed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 116, 218 (corrected), 220, 224, 225 and 227.
[Text\


Mr. Fontaine: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works put at the disposal of third parties, on a temporary basis, space rented by or belonging to the Department?
2.	In 1984, were any government capital assets unused and, if so (a) what is a complete list (b) in each case, what was the (i) description (ii) owners' names?
3.	In 1984, was space unused due to lack of decision or budget and, if so, what space?
4.	In 1984, did the Department rent space unused by the public service or Crown corporations and, if so (a) to whom (b) what were the terms?
5.	Between 1980 and 1984, did the Department buy land and, if so (a) from whom (b) for what intended use (c) what is the current use?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: In so
far as Public Works Canada is concerned:
1.	The Department leases space, which is not required for government occupancy or which is used to support government occupancy, e.g. cafeterias and canteens, to third parties on a temporary basis or on a fixed term basis.
2.	In April 1984, the Department had on inventory 655,725 square metres of space in 592 buildings and 1,304,289 square metres of land, situated in 75 parcels, which were unoccupied. (See table below). The Department has an inventory of 255,413 square metres of space and 1,403,317 square metres of vacant land. See table below for a regional comparison.
3.	Of the April, 1984, unoccupied inventory, 253,232 square metres of space located in 38 buildings and 855,936 square metres of land in 18 parcels were under study or pending decisions.
4.	The Department let space and land, which was not required for government occupancy, to 539 third parties. The quantities were 184,720 square metres of space and 1,466,445 square metres of land. (See table below). To this day, the space let to third parties is 182,158 square metres of space and 1,174,823 square metres of land. See table for data comparison.
5.	Between 1980 and 1984, the Department acquired interests in 1,246 parcels of land.
Vacant Space/Lands Comparison 1984/1987
Region	1984	Current (1987)	Buildings	Space	Buildings	SpaceAtl.	199	121,188	102	68,466Que.	60	65,332	59	58,536NCR	49	69,415	54	53,300'Ont.	72	175,542	35	38,256Wst.	118	174,825	68	23,967Pac.	94	49,423	30	12,888Total	592	655,725	348	255,413
January 18, 1988

Region		1984	Current	
	#of		# of	
Parcels	Land	Parcels	LandAtl.	1	15,555	37	112,487*Que.	29	120,638	1	24,085NCR	14	5,910	4	386,400*Ont.	10	20,993	5	37,096*Wst.	13	4,841	17	9,710Pac.	8	1,136,352	3	833,539Total	75	1,304,289	67	1,403,317'Includes lands not identified in 1984	
Third Party Lettings 1984/87
Region	1984	Current	Space	Land	Space	LandAtl.	46,327	9,853	16,222	23,337Que.	14,637	466,193	21,828	267NCR	76,232	15,604	95,874	0Ont.	14,568	773,901	8,684	932,059Wst.	9,774	7,076	22,801	0Pac.	23,182	193,818	16,749	219,160Total	184,720	1,466,445	182,158	1,174,823


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of National Defence make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.

	1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88
Royal Canadian Naval Associa-				
tion	9,125	9,490	9,490	9,490Naval Officers Association Military Studies-York Univer-	24,700	25.690	25,690	25,690sity Royal Canadian Military Insti-	40,000	40,500	90,000	92,700tute	6,151	6,107	6,011	6,092Ontario Rifle Association Canadian Institute of Strategic	5,645	8,315	7,405	7,180Studies	50,000	50,000	100,000	100.000
Order Paper Questions
2. The above are annual grants which are included in the DND Main Estimates and are paid for the following purposes:
(a)	Royal Canadian Naval Association and the Naval Officers' Association-to promote and maintain interest in military affairs generally and particularly in the welfare and development of the Naval Forces.
(b)	Military Studies-to develop a domestic competence and national interest in military and strategic issues of current and future relevance to Canada's national security.
(c)	Royal Canadian Military Institute-to provide the means of maintaining contact with the civilian population and retired service officers to encourage the promotion of military science and disseminate to the public accurate and current information on military affairs.
(d)	Ontario Rifle Association-to promote the skill of small arms usage as a contribution to the defence of Canada.
(e)	The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies-to encourage an understanding of strategic issues, Canada's role and position in the world within both the Canadian public and the government.


Mr. Riis: Between January 1 and November 1, 1987, did the government authorize permits for the export of goods falling under Section 7 (military goods) of the Export Control List for (a) Chile (b) Honduras (c) El Salvador (d) Guatemala (e) Colombia (J) Angola (g) Mozambique (h) Sri Lanka (/') Indonesia (j) Pakistan (k) South Korea (/) Taiwan (m) Philippines (n) Syria (o) Iraq (p) Iran (q) Jordan (r) Saudi Arabia (5) Kuwait (/) Lebanon (u) Turkey and, if so, what was the total value of such permits in each case?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The chart below summarizes by country the number and total value of the permits for Group 7 products, (military goods) issued to the specified countries between January 1, 1987 and November 1, 1987. It should be noted that the values indicated are for authorized exports; values for actual exports may be considerably less.

January 18, 1988
Order Paper Questions
Country	Number of Permits	Total Value(a) Chile	4	$ 1,175,000(b) Honduras	0	-(c) El Salvador	0	-(d) Guatemala	0	-(e) Colombia	2	7,138(f) Angola	0	-(g) Mozambique	0	-(h) Sri Lanka	2	455,000(i) Indonesia	2	10,196(j) Pakistan	18	73,152,993(k) South Korea	15	39,754,289(1) Taiwan	0	-(m) Philippines	3	40,981(n) Syria	0	-(o) Iraq	0	-(p) Iran	0	-(q) Jordan	1	100,000(r) Saudi Arabia	15	72,272,385(s) Kuwait	3	9,512,000(t) Lebanon	0	-(u) Turkey	10	23,598,358


Mr. Caccia: 1.	In 1987, what studies have been conducted to assess potential impacts on the environment resulting from free trade negotiations?
2.	Are studies (a) being conducted to assess potential environmental impacts of the trade agreement reached on October 4, 1987 (b) going to be conducted before such agreement is ratified?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: The Free Trade Agreement is a commercial accord between the world's two largest trading partners. It is not an environmental agreement. The environment was not, therefore, a subject for negotiation nor are environmental matters included in the text of the agreement. Our capability to deal with environmental issues at the national and international levels is unaffected by the FTA as our recently announced federal water policy makes clear. In the appropriate way and in the appropriate forums Canada will continue to pursue with vigour the objectives of its environmental policies.
On the broader question of international trade and the environment, the GATT has ruled that the environmental policies of a national government cannot be construed as an impediment to trade. Canada has long supported the GATT and will continue to do so.


Mr. Howie: For 1986 and 1987, to date, were any studies conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare related to marijuana and, if so, how many and, in each case, at what cost?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There have been no specific studies of marijuana use for 1986
and 1987 to date. Some questions on marijuana were incorporated as part of a larger survey entitled "A Summary Report on Tobacco, Alcohol and Marijuana Use and Norms Among Young People in Canada-Year 4", which was prepared for Health Services and Promotion Branch by the Canadian Gallup Poll Limited in March, 1986. The total cost of this survey was $230,000.
A copy of the report is available from the Health Services and Promotion Branch-Department of National Health and Welfare-Ottawa, Ontario.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Is the Department of Agriculture currently conducting any in-house research into tobacco and, if so, (a) at what research stations (b) involving approximately how many person years?
2.	In the past year, has the Department contracted out any such research?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes (a) Charlottetown, Prince (b) 1 person-year
Edward Island
L'Assomption, Quebec	6 person-years
Delhi, Ontario	25 person-years
total = 32 person-years
2.	No.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary just answered several questions. There are 23 other questions which are begging to be answered by the Government and the 45 days required for that have expired. I wonder, in the spirit of the new year, if the Parliamentary Secretary could give me the undertaking that he will incite, encourage and possibly promote the answering of these questions so that we may get satisfactory responses.
By the way, I have a vested interest in this. I have a question on the Order Paper which I would love to have answered because I want to act on it quickly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I did some investigation into the situation over the recent break. I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that the speed with which this Government answers questions is at least 20 per cent faster than the
January 18, 1988

previous Government. However, I take his concern about the 23 questions into account and will see what we can do.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that there is still a question dated November 24 standing in my name which has not been answered. Whether or not the Government is quicker than any preceding Government is not the point. The rules of the House have changed and there is now a specific requirement under the Standing Orders which did not previously exist, a requirement which was adopted unanimously by the House, providing that Order Paper Questions be answered in 45 days when so requested by an Hon. Member. Question No. 228 is in fact a question requiring a 45-day response.
In view of the fact that November 24 and the subsequent 45 days have long elapsed, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into Question No. 228 particularly. The question involves the expenditure of funds in relation to the Petro-Canada jet to transport someone from the United States to Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the Hon. Member. I think he was wise to point out that we have had parliamentary reform; this Government led the way on parliamentary reform. That is one of the reasons questions are being answered so much more frequently and quickly. We spent many years in Opposition being stonewalled by previous Governments and it is really a pleasure to have the Hon. Member point out to the House that we have moved so much further ahead.
However, I will look specifically into Question No. 228. There may indeed be some kind of a problem of which I am not aware, but we will attempt to find out in the spirit with which we are moving forward on parliamentary reform.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 133 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 133 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stackhouse: Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
For each of the years 1985 and 1986, were Canadian-made weapons and equipment, built to military specifications, permitted to be exported and, if so, by country, what were the dollar amounts?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege to have the opportunity to speak in introducing this Bill at second reading. It is most appropriate that the House should resume its session today for the calendar year 1988 with this legislation which is designed to give a great upward boost and momentum to the cause of overcoming regional disparities in Atlantic Canada.
The Bill was introduced just before Christmas. It was forecast in the Speech from the Throne, and I will refer to that in a few moments. I might point out that it was in 1969 that the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established and over the past 20 or 25 years we have seen a variety of programs and expenditures aimed at reducing regional disparities in Canada.
I think it must be said that the Government that was here before us and previous Governments over the last 20 or 25 years have endorsed the principles of overcoming regional disparity and of trying to develop all regions of Canada. In fact, I do not know of any other nation in the world where so much emphasis is put on regional development and on attempting to overcome regional disparities.
In any event, the old DREE was established in 1969. In the early 1970s, there were the beginnings of general development agreements with subagreements for specific purposes. Spending was shared between the federal and provincial Governments, the higher proportion coming from the Government of Canada. Two of the principal industrial incentive programs of the Government of Canada have been the Regional Development Incentives Act and under that Act the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
It should be pointed out, to put it in the proper context, that federal regional development spending under GDAs, ERDAs and under the RDIA and IRDP programs did slacken off, I think would perhaps be the right term, over recent years until

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
1984-85. For example, there was very little growth in federal government spending in the Atlantic provinces on these major development programs in 1984-85 as compared to 1976-77. In 1984-85, spending under those programs in the Atlantic region was only 10 per cent higher than it was in 1976-77 while spending in Canada as a whole was 77 per cent higher.
The early 1980s was a period of retrenchment on the part of the Government of Canada and that is shown by the fact that spending in the Atlantic region for those programs in 1981-82 was only 3 per cent higher than it was in 1976-77 despite the inflation that had occurred in the intervening period. In addition, the proportion of the Canadian total going to the Atlantic region had declined dramatically during that period.
There has been some improvement in spending under these programs in Atlantic Canada from 1984-85 to the present time, but quite clearly, apart all together from the need for increased spending, it is quite clear that there is a need for changes in approach as well. That is what the present legislation is designed to do.
We all know, at least those of us who are objective, rational and honest in our approach, that there has been considerable improvement in the economic environment in Atlantic Canada under the administration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). Some 1,118,000 jobs were created under this Government's policies in effect since September, 1984. In relative terms, jobs have been created in Canada at a faster rate than in any other major OECD nation. Of those, 81,000 were created in Atlantic Canada. That is some improvement but not nearly enough. It is a very considerable improvement, of course, over the record of our Liberal predecessors.
Employment has risen and the unemployment rate has fallen in every Atlantic province, indeed in every province, during this period. In Atlantic Canada total unemployment fell by 30,000 from September, 1984, to the present, compared to an increase of 68,000 under the last Liberal Government of former Prime Minister Trudeau. That is a significant improvement but of course not enough. In September of 1984, when the Mulroney Government took office, unemployment in Atlantic Canada was 17 per cent. By October of 1987, just over three years later, it had fallen to 13.2 per cent; still a significant figure but a decrease of almost 4 per cent.
The number of Atlantic Canada families living below the poverty line decreased during the same period from 16.4 per cent in 1984 to 15.8 per cent in 1986; a small decrease, but nevertheless a decrease. The number of single people in Atlantic Canada living below the poverty line decreased by almost 10 per cent, from 48 per cent in 1984 to 38.6 per cent in 1986. The free trade agreement will of course further reduce the number of Atlantic Canadians living below the poverty line because it will increase the number of jobs, increase real incomes, and reduce consumer prices. This is particularly appropriate for Atlantic Canada because it has for 100 years
been seeking ways to improve the terms of trade with our partners to the south. The region is achieving that at last under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
As I said, there has been a considerable improvement in the economic environment in Atlantic Canada since the last election, but of course this is not enough. We are not satisfied with it. The Prime Minister is not satisfied with it. Our Atlantic Ministers are not satisfied with it. It has not been enough and more needs to be done. That is why the present legislation is before us.
On October 1, 1986, in the Speech from the Throne, the Government promised a bold new approach to regional development. That is encompassed in this Bill. The Speech from the Throne said this:
It is time to consider new approaches, to examine how' our considerable and growing support for Canada's regions can be used more efficiently, more effectively and with greater sensitivity to local conditions and opportunities.
That is one of the main features of the approach in this legislation, greater sensitivity to local conditions and opportunities. It went on to say that we are convinced:
- many positive proposals for new policy initiatives will come from those who live and work in the regions concerned.
That is a central principle of this legislation. The speech went on to say:
As a first step in achieving improved results from this sustained national approach, an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be constituted to facilitate and co-ordinate all federal development initiatives in the area. This agency will make full use of the expertise available in the Atlantic region and invite the maximum participation of other Governments and organizations in the area.
That is what the Speech from the Throne in 1986 said and that is what the legislation now before the House does. Mr. McPhail and Senator Murray have put in place the machinery to carry out these pledges in a Speech from the Throne which was one of the most momentous in Canadian history to date. Under it, a whole series of very important policies have been adopted and implemented by the Government, including the free trade agreement, the Meech Lake constitutional Accord, the new approach to defence, child care, and other policies of which we will hear a great deal during the next few months.
The Prime Minister promised to consult with Atlantic Canadians in establishing the new regional development agency promised in the Speech from the Throne. The result is the ACOA which will be operated by and for Atlantic Canadians. It has been devised by Atlantic Canadians. It has not been imposed upon them from someone here in Ottawa, such as a former mayor now in this House or someone who doubtless believes that they understand everything that happens in Canada because they happen to live in the national capital and scoot off somewhere in the region of Ontario to get elected to this Parliament and tell us how the world works outside Ottawa. They of course think that the world is Ottawa. There is a great world out there that is not Ottawa or Ontario. The result, of course, of our approach, which is different-
January 18, 1988


Mr. Rompkey:: Or St. John's.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is life beyond the overpass.


Bill Rompkey: Right.


Mr. Tobin:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is proven by the fact that last Monday in Gander, I helped celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the great Gander airport. There was a rapprochement between myself and the people of Gander.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As the bubbly flowed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Following the Speech from the Throne the consultation promised by the Prime Minister was put in place. Mr. Donald Savoie was appointed to consult extensively with representatives from all sectors in Atlantic Canada. He is an expert on and very familiar with regional development and he reported to the Government in May of 1987 as to what the approach should be.
I might mention at this stage that Dalton Camp, a well-known Atlantic Canadian from New Brunswick-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Advisor to Richard Hatfield.


John Carnell Crosbie: -is now serving his country in the Privy Council Office, and any man prepared to go in the Privy Council Office has to be dedicated indeed. He had a great deal to do with this, as well as the six Atlantic Ministers. My colleagues, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), both from Nova Scotia, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), from New Brunswick, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt), from New Brunswick, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), from Prince Edward Island, and myself, your humble servant, worked on the legislation, its planning and administration, now before the House for which we are seeking approval.
After Mr. Savoie's report was received, steps were taken very quickly to implement it. On June 6, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency at St. John's. He came to St. John's, met the four Atlantic Premiers and others, and announced the new agency there. He said at that time that Senator Lowell Murray, who of course is another Atlantic Canadian and very familiar with the region, would be the Minister responsible for ACOA, and that I would represent him in that respect in the House of Commons. He went on to say that Senator Murray would consult with the Atlantic provincial Governments and private sector representatives as ACOA was set up. At about that time the Prime Minister announced that Mr. Donald McPhail, who was then our Ambassador in Germany, would be the President, 1 believe, of the agency and that the head office of the agency would be in Moncton, New Brunswick, a city about which we have heard much in the last several years and to which the Government has given much attention.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Mr. Robichaud:: You will be hearing more.


John Carnell Crosbie: You will be hearing a great deal more about Moncton because the Government has done a great deal for New Brunswick including paying a great deal of attention to the City of Moncton and the City of Saint John which was in the news just before Christmas when it received a tremendous contract for the construction of six frigates for the Canadian Navy. Those frigates would never be constructed if the NDP was in power because of its "no defence" policy.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We didn't have the Russians to bring the parts for us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Apparently the hon. gentleman does not believe in glasnost. When the hon. gentleman needs some parts he will not worry about where they come from. I can suggest one part he needs now up above the nose.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Not one of your better lines, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: On August 31 Senator Murray announced the composition of a 19-member ACOA board, an advisory board with members from each of the Atlantic provinces. This is to ensure input by representative Atlantic business persons into all aspects of the operation of the agency. The purpose of the board is to advise, guide and encourage. On September 3 the board had its first meeting in Moncton. There are four Newfoundland representatives with whom I am, of course, fully familiar. Fred Russell has done an excellent job on the Atlantic Enterprise Board and is a very experienced and capable Newfoundland businessman. He is experienced in the fish processing business, the automobile business, and the shipping business. He is very experienced in employer-labour relations in Newfoundland. Mr. Ed Drover is a dynamic life insurance representative, a fine Newfoundlander from Upper Island Cove.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Prominent Tory fundraiser.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 do not know what his politics are, Mr. Speaker. 1 would not have inquired into that. 1 do not think the hon. gentleman would know what the politics of Barbara Knight are because she happens to be a civil servant.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In Newfoundland? A prominent Tory.


John Carnell Crosbie: I don't think she has any partisan politics at all. Finally, Mr. Ian Strachan, who I believe ran at one time for the Liberal Party, but the hon. gentleman is not going to mention that.


Bill Rompkey: But then so did you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Ian Strachan is from Goose Bay. I think if we examine the composition of this board we will see that there are representatives from all Parties except, 1 believe, the

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
New Democratic Party. I do not believe there are any supporters of the New Democratic Party on the board of this agency, but there might well be, because we do not investigate these matters.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who are the Liberals, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: I cannot guarantee that there are any NDP representatives on the board, but there may well be. We could not care less if they are good, sound people. Of course, it is hard to find good, sound NDP people in the area who might be available for this. They are all here in the House.
In addition to the consultation that I have mentioned so far, as a follow-up to that process, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is at this time having an intensive round of consultations with business and community leaders in 20 centres in Atlantic Canada. This process has been very successful. 1 will refer later to an editorial from the Atlantic Chamber Journal and the APCC President's Report by Jeanne Geldart wherein she points out how successful that process has been. There has never before been as much consultation in the setting up of any government agency.
When this phase ends in the next several weeks, 400 to 500 Atlantic Canadians from the private sector, our educational communities, and labour groups in Atlantic Canada will have had a chance to contribute to the policy and program design options for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This is an unprecedented opportunity for groups outside of government to involve themselves in the design of the programs and the agency itself.
We have consulted with and listened to Atlantic Canadians in establishing this agency. The reaction so far has been good. We know that the agency is only starting. We will have to look back in four or five years to see whether it has been more successful than the previous approaches to overcoming regional disparity in Atlantic Canada.
I want to refer to a Saint John, New Brunswick editorial. I quote from The Citizen. The editorial discusses previous attempts at regional development under our Liberal predecessors and then goes on to say the following:
With this track record, it's understandable why some people are greeting ACOA with a certain amount of apprehension.
I have said before that the Liberal Party is interested in overcoming regional disparity and did make efforts to do that, with mixed results. The editorial continues:
But the make up of this new agency gives us good reason to have hope for the future .... The agency is hungry for ideas, Atlantic Canadian ideas, that can help improve the employment situation and general economic atmosphere in the region ....
That editorial is dated October 13, 1987.
The Evening Times- Globe of Saint John, New Brunswick, had the following to say on November 12:
The federal government, in giving ACOA a clean slate with which to work,
has also given it a corporate status that keeps it out of the clutches of the
Ottawa bureaucratic establishment's red tape.
That is a true and essential characteristic of this agency as well. Its head office is in Moncton and its other offices are in the four provincial capitals. In Ottawa there is only a liaison office which has an advocacy role.


Louis J. Robichaud: Where are the decisions being made?


John Carnell Crosbie: The decisions are being made in Atlantic Canada. There must be representatives in Ottawa to keep the Ministers advised, to play the advocacy role that is so important, and to help co-ordinate.
Just because the Liberal approach did not work and needed improvement I hope the hon. gentleman will not take a negative approach to this legislation. We are looking for unanimity. I am hoping to have the support of the Official Opposition at least. The New Democratic Party has no record in this area but the Liberal Party has and I hope we will have its support for the principles of the legislation now before the House.
The agency is regionally based. The headquarters is in Atlantic Canada. I want to make the point that the success of the agency will depend on Atlantic Canadians. It will depend on initiatives from the area. Success will depend on the entrepreneurs of Atlantic Canada, on the proposals they put forward, on the amount of get-up-and-go there is in Atlantic Canada. The backing and support for them is here but it is up to them to initiate the enterprises or expand enterprises so that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency can assist.
As was stated in the Saint John newspaper editorial that 1 referred to "the ball has been placed squarely in Atlantic Canada's court and we now have to run with it. We must show the rest of Canada that we possess more than down-home rural charm". That quote from The Citizen of October 13 puts it in a nutshell. That is the way I see it. Through this legislation, through the money being provided, and through the flexibility which is being given, we are putting the ball in the court of Atlantic Canada and it is Atlantic Canadians who must run with it. We have to show the rest of Canada that we possess more than a down-home rural charm, and that we have the get-up and go. We have the ability in Atlantic Canada, given the necessary assistance to succeed.
The agency has been given responsibility for all regional development programs that relate to the Atlantic region. These include the Atlantic Enterprise Program, which is another Mulroney Government initiative.


An Hon. Member:: A great success.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Atlantic Enterprise Program has been a great success and a great help in Atlantic Canada, with
January 18, 1988

interest rate reduction and other programs introduced by that policy.
The agency will also take over the Industrial Regional Development Program, Enterprise Cape Breton and ERDA's.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The IRDP is being phased out.


John Carnell Crosbie: IRDP phased out or not, it is still a program to be administered and will be administered for Atlantic Canada by Senator Murray.
Along with those programs comes the money to administer them. The present level of expenditures under those programs amounts to approximately $196 million-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Annually.


John Carnell Crosbie: -annually, which is a considerable increase over the regional development spending in Atlantic Canada by the last Liberal government. As 1 described earlier in my remarks, unfortunately their spending had not increased greatly over the 1960s. The spending on these programs for the present fiscal year will be approximately $196 million. The average spending under ERDAs and GDAs by the last Liberal administration in the last three years of their mandate from 1981-82 to 1983-84 amounted to $146 million for these purposes. The average expenditure under ERDA's and GDAs by the present Government during the last three years amounts to $198.5 million, an increase of approximately 35 per cent.


Bill Rompkey: But the same agreements.


John Carnell Crosbie: Spending has increased 35 per cent in the system of ERDA agreements and GDAs under this Government. Those are simply the facts. The Prime Minister, and certainly we Atlantic Ministers, were not satisfied with an increase in spending of 35 per cent. That is why we have committed an additional $1.05 billion over the next five years. We have already increased the spending that existed when the Liberals were in office in 1984-85 by 35 per cent. We are not satisfied with a 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 35 per cent increase. We have stated that we will continue spending on these programs or similar programs and will add to that level another $1.05 billion over the next five years. Our commitment is for an additional $200 million yearly for five years, which is an increase of twice the spending in this Government's effort to overcome regional disparity in Atlantic Canada. My hon. friends opposite may have some criticism, but I know they will support this program.
Let me refer to the Bill. The purpose is stated in Clause 4, which is:
To increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and,
more particularly, to enhance the growth of earned incomes and employment
opportunities in that region.
That is what we want for the region. We want an increase in earned income, not a transfer in income.
The object of the Bill is described in Clause 12, which states:
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The object of the Agency is to support and promote opportunity for economic development of Atlantic Canada, with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises, through policy, program and project development and implementation and through advocacy of the interests of Atlantic Canada in national economic policy, program and project development and implementation.
Clause 4 and Clause 12 describe the purpose and object of the Bill, with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises. That is the purpose of the agency, not to spend $1 billion on general infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. This money will not be used for those purposes, which are the purposes of the present regional development spending under current ERDA and other agreements.
This money will not be used for the sewerage out of Halifax Harbour or Saint John's Harbour. That is not its purpose.


John R. Rodriguez: What is happening to ERDAs?


John Carnell Crosbie: ERDAs will continue at the rate of spending now in effect. The other $200 million a year will help small and medium-sized business create jobs and increase earned incomes throughout Atlantic Canada. That is its purpose, not to pave streets, build roads and so on, as will continue to be done under ERDA type agreements.
In addition, the agency will have an advocacy role. It will be empowered to formulate plans to support economic development in Atlantic Canada in consort with all other federal departments. No federal department will be able to operate in Atlantic Canada without input from this agency. The agency will ensure that any initiative of the federal Government in Atlantic Canada is harnessed to the goal of increasing opportunities for economic development in Atlantic Canada.
As one person said, it is like having a friend fighting for us in Ottawa. In addition to Atlantic Canada Members and Atlantic Canada Ministers, this agency will have the object of fighting for Atlantic Canadians in Ottawa. This never happened before.


An Hon. Member:: I thought that was your job.


John R. Rodriguez: You will be redundant.


John Carnell Crosbie: It would be a tremendous accomplishment if we became redundant.


John R. Rodriguez: You will be very soon.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would sooner be redundant than a complete reactionary, like the Hon. Member and his Party. They are against any change in Canada. I suppose they will be against this Bill because it is a change. They are against free trade because that is a change, and against freedom to move because that is a change. Has Shirley Carr given her permission for you to support this little change?
This agency will also have a co-ordinating role. The Minister is given unprecedented authority to co-ordinate all policies and programs of the Government of Canada in relation to opportunity for economic development in Atlantic

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Canada. This provision is contained in Clause 5(2) of the legislation.
Clause 9 provides for another unprecedented power. It gives the Minister the unique authority to transfer, conditionally or unconditionally, funds from ACOA to supplement the funds of another Minister for a project that the Minister of ACOA is satisfied will further the objectives of this legislation. If another minister has a project that is very helpful to Atlantic Canada, the Minister responsible for ACOA can decide to supplement the funding there. He will have the right under Clause 7 to designate areas within Atlantic Canada for specific periods of time. He will select those areas because they provide exceptional opportunities for economic development. This gives the Minister real flexibility so that he can designate as such, * an area that has an exceptional opportunity for economic development. That is in addition to his present authority to create special areas under the special areas legislation. If the Minister must create a designated area or a special area in Atlantic Canada, he can do so.
Clause 8 provides another new power. It gives the Minister the right to acquire stock options and to exercise rights under those options in connection with any loan guarantee, or credit insurance, grant or contribution.
The Minister is also empowered to enter into federal-provincial agreements with the provinces of Atlantic Canada subject to approval by the Governor in Council. In that respect he will have the same powers the Minister of DRIE had with respect to ERDA subsidiary agreements.
This is another illustration of the Prime Minister's policy of building a stronger Canada based on co-operative federal-provincial relations. This is not talking about co-operative federalism, as did the last Government under former Prime Minister Trudeau, and then imposing the iron-shod heel on the provinces. No, this is not talking abut co-operative federalism on the one hand and doing the exact opposite on the other hand, what I used to call "jackboot" democracy. Do Hon. Members remember when we had jackboot democracy in this country? My God, if one disagreed with the Liberal administration it put the boots right to you, jack and all. Well, we do not have that any longer. We have co-operative federal-provincial relations.
This will enable federal and provincial governments to work together on priority initiatives to give opportunities for economic development. Its success will in part depend on the provincial governments and their co-operation as well. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) will remember that sometimes it is not all that easy to get co-operation from provincial governments. Perhaps he will enlighten us on that when he speaks.


Bill Rompkey: You have had a more recent experience, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I mentioned that the key feature of the agency is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board consisting of 18 members plus the president. It has been operational for four months. It has had four meetings. It is greatly assisting the agency in performing its duties. It has recommended a number of initiatives which include the Centre for Fisheries Innovations in St. John's, Newfoundland, the New Brunswick Research Productivity Council Revitalization Program, the Atlantic Canada Supply or Development Program, the Office Automation Centre Program, for starters. Its next meeting will be January 26 in Halifax, the great metropolitan centre of Atlantic Canada. That will be its fifth meeting.
It is a coincidence that the Atlantic Ministers meet frequently with Senator Murray. We had a meeting this morning which I had to leave, of course, to come here and introduce the Bill. The six Atlantic Ministers will be meeting with Senator Murray on a regular basis in order to assist this process and ensure that Atlantic Canada takes a central role, which is of tremendous importance in the thinking of the Government and Government structure here in Ottawa.
In Part II of the Bill there is the establishment of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The corporation will carry on the mandate of the industrial development division of DEVCO. Its objectives are mainly the same as those of the industrial development division under the Cape Breton Development Act. The transfer of the industrial development role and responsibilities to Enterprise Cape Breton will not diminish at all the current level of development assistance and service at Cape Breton or St. John's. It is interesting to see the successful turn in Cape Breton and the atmosphere of greater hope and greater positive prospects. DEVCO will retain a clear commercial mandate to continue the coal mining operations of DEVCO.
Since June of 1987, when the Prime Minister made his announcement in St. John's, Newfoundland, the ACOA has been busy getting itself set up. It has taken over the processes for applications under existing regional development programs such as the Atlantic Enterprise Program. These processes are now being greatly streamlined. You will not believe this, Mr. Speaker, because you are used to how things were done in the past under the former Liberal administration and how much time it took, but 90 per cent of all applications can now be processed at the provincial ACOA offices. They do not have to come to Ottawa at all. Ninety per cent of Atlantic Enterprise Program applications, for example, can be dealt with by Gordon Slade and his people at the office in St. John's or at the offices in Charlottetown, Halifax or Moncton. There has been tremendous streamlining. In the seven and a half months since the agency was established, it has approved 451 applications and has authorized $68 million in contributions to Atlantic enterprises, and it is only getting started under these present regional development programs.
These activities have resulted in creating 1,704 jobs and enabled 2,648 additional jobs to be maintained. Once this
January 18, 1988

legislation is passed, hopefully, through the House of Commons and the Senate during January and February, it is not unreasonable, 1 think, to hope or expect that this process could be completed by the middle of February and then the agency will be in a position to start with its own new programs and to really get them in gear.
The suggestion has been made that the free trade agreement might threaten regional development. I think the obvious non sequitur relationship of that is easily seen by the fact that this legislation is now before the House of Commons. There is nothing in the free trade arrangement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but his time has expired. Do we have unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to continue for a few more minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 will try to finish up in two or three minutes.
As I was saying, there is nothing in the Canada-U.S. free trade arrangements which threatens regional development. The Prime Minister wrote to Premier Buchanan on December 30. I would like to put on the record what he said, as follows:
When these negotiations with the U.S. began, I wanted to ensure that our ability to promote regional development policies was preserved. We have done that. I can assure you further that we will continue to maintain our capacity for regional development programs in the course of negotiations intended to develop a new North American regime on trade remedy rules. In short, the federal Government remains fully committed to programs and measures which will deal effectively with regional disparities.
Let me reaffirm here today the Prime Minister's commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada.
I have one further reference I would like to make. Gerald Regan, the former Minister of International Trade in the Government of Mr. Trudeau and former Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, said last December when discussing free trade and regional development:
What a bilateral trade deal does is provide us with a chance to create new opportunities rather than just be affected, one way or another, by forces beyond our control-
1 want to congratulate Mr. Regan for taking the stand he has. It is never easy to disagree with ones own party-I have been through that-but he has to do it in this case because he feels deeply about Atlantic Canada and about the Canada-U.S. free trade arrangement. He is to be congratulated for having the courage to express those views publicly. I am not surprised by it because I have known Gerry Regan for many years and he struck me as just that kind of person.
Trying to summarize, in conclusion let me say that it is my privilege to assist my colleague, Senator Murray, with this Bill in the House and to speak on the benefits we expect to flow to Atlantic Canadians by the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and, of course, by the fruition of the free trade agreement, if it comes to fruition during the balance
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
of 1988. It is very interesting to note the remarks of Jeanne Geldart, who is the new president of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, in its recent issue, in which she pointed out that the chamber had been criticized for propagating negative thinking about ACOA before the agency had been given a chance. She acknowledges that this is a possible criticism, but takes a different attitude and view with respect to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. She said that they were more concerned about perceived failures of earlier regional development programs. In her remarks she pointed out that many business people would like to give the agency a chance, and to fully engage in helping the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in being a success, which they hope that it will be, by taking a more positive approach to the suggestions. She points out how in recent years skepticism has become extremely fashionable and that negativism-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who said this?


John Carnell Crosbie: Jeanne Geldart, the President of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of commerce. She points out that there was much skepticism and negativism, probably caused by the fact that Governments before us did not always do what they said they would do in contradistinction to the record of this Government.
In ending her editorial comment she pointed out that if we are to overcome the problems of regional economic disparity and create a new partnership for our Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, the business community must first believe that it is able to do so. That is very true. It must also take a positive attitude, which Madam Geldart says it will be taking toward this agency.
We all know that there will be no miracles. We also believe that this will be much better machinery and a much better organization with much greater powers to assist in overcoming regional disparity in Atlantic Canada. All of this is embodied in the legislation before us. We also believe that we have excellent people to administer and carry this out.
Finally, I note that Mr. John O'Day, who was President of the St. John's Board of Trade last year, feels that this agency will have a very positive impact. He is looking forward to working closely with it. I can assure Hon. Members that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is looking forward to working closely with all interested Atlantic Canadians, those who are interested in more economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada and greater earned income for Atlantic Canadians. I feel sure that this Bill is a step toward a more prosperous future for Atlantic Canada.
1 am looking forward to listening to the comments of Hon. Members opposite. Before I sit down I would like to explain that I have to leave at 12.30 p.m. because of a Bill 1 introduced earlier today dealing with railway safety on which we have to have a session with the press. I will be following the debate very closely to see what Hon. Members opposite have to

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
suggest and to see what their comments will be in connection with any improvements they think might be made to the Bill. The Bill will be going to a legislative committee as well and to the Senate.
I would like to say a word of praise for the Prime Minister whose initiative this has been. He has been very much interested in regional development and in assisting Atlantic Canada. He has not lost sight of that despite the many other great national objectives and national triumphs he has had in the last six months, including the Meech Lake Accord and the U.S.-Canada free trade arrangement. He has not forgotten the need for doing something special for Atlantic Canada. He was born in Baie-Comeau which is in part of this area that needs regional assistance. I believe he was educated in New Brunswick, certainly in Cape Breton. Thus he is well aware of our circumstances in Atlantic Canada. He first ran in the riding of the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) in Nova Scotia-


John R. Rodriguez: And then he promptly ran away!


John Carnell Crosbie: No, he did not run away. There is not one other Member in the House who would do what the Prime Minister did-


Mr. Althouse:: You are right about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He left what to all purposes was a safe seat politically and went to run in Manicouagan where in the last election the Liberals won by about 2,500,000 votes! He moved from a safe district to an unsafe district and led us to a great victory. There is not another Member in the House who would risk that, certainly not the mighty mouths who are here today trying to howl down the Prime Minister after this wonderful record that I have outlined for them today.
1 would like to congratulate the Prime Minister who has not forgotten us in Atlantic Canada. This will be his great monument in Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. 1 am delighted to serve with him. I hope that before nine or ten months have gone by we will settle this matter of who will form the Government of Canada for the next succeeding four or five years so that progress and policies such as this can continue to go forward for the help of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to come back to Parliament and to see the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) leading off for the Government. A little bit of humour sets a better tone as we return after the Christmas break.
1 could not help but reflect as I listened to the Minister's speech that it was like some kind of an election speech. Here
was the Minister of Transport, after three years of being in government, reflecting on the record of the previous Government and finding it necessary to read to Members of Parliament, and all Canadians, a little bit of biographical data about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is a man who is supposedly in touch, with his finger on the pulse of the people of Canada.
The Minister started off by saying that this Bill is designed to give a great upward boost to Atlantic Canada. He might have been more to the point if he had said that this Bill was designed to give a great upward goose to Atlantic Canada. In essence, this Bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is nothing but an attempt to get a bigger bang, more publicity, out of a smaller regional development buck.
The facts are straightforward. Over the three years that the Government has been in power regional development spending has decreased by over 30 per cent. Regional development spending has decreased by $3 billion in the three years that the Government has been in power. That is the reality.
What does that leave us? It leaves us with a Government, in the face of an ever shrinking commitment to regional development spending, inventing new names and giving higher local profiles to new agencies in an attempt to give a greater emphasis to a shrinking commitment and a shrinking regional development dollar in Atlantic Canada to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In western Canada there is a Western Initiatives Program. Both these programs are designed to cover up, to camouflage, the fact that the Government has reduced both in spirit and in financial terms its commitment to combat regional disparity and to seek as a target some minimal level of services no matter where one lives.
The Minister of Transport, who is a former Minister of Justice, a year or a year and a half ago stood in the House to say that he wanted to bring in a Bill, if he could obtain the consent of the provinces, to do away with the Senate, that unelected chamber that has no role in a modern democracy. I found it passing strange to see that self-same former Minister of Justice stand in his place today as the Minister of Transport acting as an apologist for the real power and the real Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Senator Lowell Murray. This same Minister who wanted to abolish the Senate because it was fundamentally undemocratic and fundamentally non-representative has now been relegated to the role of a mouthpiece and an apologist for the Senator who has the real power, to the extent that there is any, for development in Atlantic Canada.
Canadians should be asking themselves why it is that of the 17 to 20 Members elected from Atlantic Canada and the half a dozen Ministers elected from Atlantic Canada in the Conservative Party, not one of those Members of Parliament enjoys enough of the Prime Minister's confidence to be named the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Opportunities Agency. Having reviewed the resumes of every single Conservative Member from Atlantic Canada, starting with the
January 18, 1988

Minister of Transport, why did the Prime Minister of Canada find it necessary to go to the Senate and pick a Senator to be the Minister responsible for running the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency? Is it because the Minister of Transport and his colleagues in the Cabinet from Atlantic Canada lack the confidence, the bravado, and the desire to pilot this agency through with legislation and into new programs, or was it because he wanted to put the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency out of the reach of parliamentarians and off into another chamber because this agency is so good, dynamic, and fantastic and it will make such a difference to Atlantic Canada that the Prime Minister in his wisdom did not want it to have a chance to be show-cased in the House of Commons?
It is an extreme contradiction in terms. On the one hand there is this view expressed by the Minister of Transport, the mouthpiece for Senator Lowell Murray, that this is a great upward boost

I call it the "great upward goose"-something the Government wants to brag about. But on the other hand the authority for the agency is vested not in the House of Commons, not with an elected Member from Atlantic Canada, but with a Senator in the other place named for another region of this country. That very fact alone should have people in Atlantic Canada wondering about the new Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
This agency was first announced in the Speech from the Throne in October of 1986, a year and a half ago. It was subsequently reannounced during the by-election which sent my friend from St. John's East to Parliament, with all of the accompanying extravaganza. We did not receive the first inkling of a piece of legislation for this new agency until the very last day the House sat before the Christmas break. That is the high profile and the importance that the Government attaches to this new agency. A year and a half after he announced it, the Minister, on behalf of his boss, Senator Murray, has finally stated in the House that he would like to introduce legislation.
What happened in the intervening 18 months? I hold in my hand a thick sheaf of press releases issued by the Minister of Transport's boss, Senator Lowell Murray, on behalf of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Every one of them begins with the words, "Senator Lowell Murray", or in some cases, "the Minister of Transport on behalf of Senator Lowell Murray," announced today such and such a program. There are all kinds of them. This Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has obviously been busy.
When one goes through the announcements, one discovers that every single program announced has funding that comes out of existing federal government programs and existing grants that have nothing to do with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Lo and behold, when ACOA is examined under a microscope, rather than from the dramatic distance of the Minister of Transport's words, it is discovered that not one single penny, not a red cent, has been spent by the
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency since its announcement 18 months ago, and since its official kick-off in June of last year by the Prime Minister in the middle of a by-election in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Not one penny has been expended. Yet today we hear the Minister of Transport telling us that we ought to be pleased because, unlike previous programs, 90 per cent of the applications can be rapidly expedited, faster than was ever done before. The Minister of Transport knows that not one single application has been expedited, and not one single penny has been spent by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency since it was announced 18 months ago. Let us get the facts straight before we allow the Minister of Transport to get carried away with his message, perhaps to carry away some of the people of Atlantic Canada as well.
The true measure of how autonomous, relevant, and independent minded this new board will be that runs the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is perhaps best measured by what has happened in the City of Moncton. In the City of Moncton the closure of the CN Shops has already cost some 850 jobs. Those jobs are permanently lost. This is in the self-same city that is the headquarters for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
How did the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the appropriate Ministers respond to this great loss of jobs in the City of Moncton? 1 can tell you how they did not respond, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago CN put out another press release announcing that the remaining 350 employees at the CN yards in Moncton will be receiving notices of their jobs being lost in the near future. I am told that as of September 30 the CN Shops will be closed. The answer to the first 850 jobs being lost is to wipe out 350 more. That is right in the backyard of the headquarters of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This latest announcement and death blow for Moncton comes despite the fact that the Minister of Transport and his predecessor, the gentleman who is currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mazankowski), both assured the people of Moncton that the Government of Canada was going to find a solution to the dramatic loss of jobs in the City of Moncton. Neither the Minister's predecessor nor the Minister have delivered on the solemn commitment given in the House, repeatedly and in particular in answer to questions from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).
There will be a board of 16 or 18 members. If one listened carefully, at least to the names read out and put on the public record by the Minister of Transport of board members from Newfoundland, three of whom are well known Conservative fund raisers and Party supporters, and in the last month one of whom had a front page expose on his Tory Party connections and was proud to talk about them in the Sunday Express. When I listened to those three or four names of prominent, hard core Conservative fund raisers, and if I assumed from that list of names that in the other Atlantic Provinces people were drawn for similar reasons, then one has to ask-and this

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
is very important-to what extent will this board be an independent semi-autonomous agency that functions independent of thought and action of the governing Party of the day?
How can Atlantic Canadians be issued the challenge of the Minister of Transport that "Ottawa cannot solve your problems, you must solve your own problems; you come with the solutions and we may or may not come with the money", when the board that has been set up to expedite that process is made up of intimate friends of the Party in power today and Conservative fund raisers? How can anyone be expected to believe that this board will operate independently, notwithstanding the views of the Minister of Transport and his colleagues from Atlantic Canada, and notwithstanding the views of the boss of the Minister of Transport, Senator Lowell Murray?
It seems to me that, as I stated, we have been given the golden goose, not a golden boost. It does not lay golden eggs. On the one hand we have been told to solve our own problems, and on the other hand our so-called independent voice has been stacked with friends of the Government who will take their instructions from the Government. That is the reality; there is no independent voice.
Why is that important and such a major point in this debate today? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Over the last two or three years, and I humbly submit particularly in Atlantic Canada, there has grown a degree of cynicism about the so-called objective means through which individuals and businesses receive grants from government, the likes of which we have never seen. There has been a proliferation of new lobby companies, a proliferation of people who will represent you to the Government and you pay if you get what you ask for. One of the better known companies is GCI, Government Consultants International and this week's Report On Business Magazine has a huge article on it. The company is headed up by former Conservative Premier Frank Moores.
Why is it important that all of the board members on ACOA are Conservatives? The article points out that this new lobby company, set up by former Conservative Frank Moores of Newfoundland, a good colleague and friend of the Minister of Transport, has established a new system to lobby on behalf of clients. It is called a pay if you win system. If you are looking for a fishing license you hire GCI, give it a flat retainer-or lobster licences in recent days-of $25,000 and if, miraculously, you get your licence-I am told there is a pretty good batting average-you continue to pay $5,000 a month for three years. This is all outlined in the Report on Business Magazine.
On the one hand we have an agency with a so-called billion dollars in new funds. It is not new funds and I will come to that. We have a so-called independent board made up of the most blue-backed dyed-in-the wool Conservatives the Government could find and we have a new system in place in Ottawa,
a new ethic, pay if you win, pay as you go and hire GCI former Conservative Premier Frank Moores and Mr. Doucet, another well known name around these places. That is the new Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.
So what do we have here? GCI is acting for Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation. GCI is acting for Canadian National, another Crown corporation. Is GCI acting for ACOA? This is the same GCI which charged Mr. Snarby $2,000 for a licence plus a $500 a month retainer after he was turned down by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon) and by all of the bureaucrats in Ottawa. Having been turned down, and on appeal at every level rejected again, miraculously Mr. Snarby got a licence that formerly he could not get. Is that the way ACOA is going to do business?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Francis Fox?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or Mr. Fox. It does not matter. This kind of lobbying is unacceptable and this kind of development in Ottawa under the Government is unacceptable to all the people of Canada no matter who is employed and who is involved. You can name whatever names you want.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not too convincing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is the same company that just recently helped a Nova Scotia company get lobster licences. It was on the national news, rejected by the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Fisheries of Nova Scotia, the opposition leaders of Nova Scotia and the fishermen of Nova Scotia. This is the same company that helped the same Halifax company get a licence. GCI took on the assignment for an initial fee of $10,000 but told the client that if it got the licence it would have to cough up an additional $25,000 a year for four years. GCI denied that and said it was charging $25,000 a year for three years, not four years. It said "We have been misrepresented". So a public relations firm for a fee of $85,000 arranges lobster licences for a so-called free market-some free market-and a free enterprise firm-some free enterprise firm-in Nova Scotia.
This so-called billion dollar agency is established with a board of directors no more independent of the Minister of Transport than the Minister who tags along at his side. The board of directors is made up of appointments not named by agencies and groups in the region. The Atlantic Chamber of Commerce was not asked to name somebody; nor was the Development Association Movement of Newfoundland and nor were the various agencies for development in Atlantic Canada. The Government polled to find out who were the staunchest Tories in the land and named them to the board. The Government is telling us that the board is to be autonomous.
As I said, in the Prime Minister's Ottawa, we are paying for contracts and licences as a way of life. Frankly, it terrifies me that that kind of board has been named which will have access to such amounts of money, and responding to the wishes of the
January 18, 1988

Minister of Transport or his boss in the Senate, Senator Murray. They are part of an administration in which paying for access and paying for the right decisions has become commonplace. It should never be commonplace.
The Minister of Transport in announcing this Bill today talks about decentralization as if it were a wonderful new thing. The Minister knows that in 1982 a system of federal development co-ordinators was established in Atlantic Canada.


Louis J. Robichaud: The Minister is leaving.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He has to go to his press conference to launch another, no doubt, great initiative.
Federal development co-ordinators were named in 1982. Each of these co-ordinators were tasked with the responsibility of co-ordinating the efforts of all federal line departments in each of the provinces. There was one for each of the Atlantic provinces. That led to a much decentralized decision-making process.
ACOA is expanding that process. One could almost argue that it is moving away from decentralization to some extent because now there is a head office in Moncton whereas before each province had a federal development co-ordinator officer who reported directly to Ottawa. One did not have to go through Moncton or any other regional office, but directly to the Minister in Ottawa. We have the same system except now we have another layer of bureaucracy so that there is no direct line of communication between New Brunswick's federal coordinating officer and Ottawa. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland must all go through the Atlantic regional office. 1 do not know whether one can call that further decentralization. I suspect in reality it may to some extent be the opposite.
The Government says there will be a billion dollars or a little more than a billion dollars in funding over five years, $200 million a year for the entire Atlantic region. If you break it down that way it does not sound as intimidating, but there are many of us who question this notion that it is new funding over five years. I noted earlier today during the Minister's speech, and he did not disagree, that 1RDP will be phased out in June of this year. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because of your extreme sensitivity and great awareness of all the regions of Canada the importance of IRDP and the role it has played in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in the country. That program which the Minister said is being transferred to ACOA will be phased out in June. As part of the reorganization of DRIE, no doubt other programs-this one has been confirmed-are on the block to be phased out.
How can the Government in good conscience on the one hand claim in excess of $1 billion in new money, moneys over and above what would have been spent in any case, when in the next breath the Minister in this House admits that IRDP, among others-is being phased out. There is no indication yet where the moneys that would have been spent under IRDP are going or whether there will be a replacement program.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
What is occurring is a consolidation of the DRIE, a consolidation of existing programs and elimination of some of those programs, and as those programs are eliminated the funds will be used to pay for new programs under ACOA. It is not new money; it is not a new initiative. It is certainly not $1 billion in new money.
The Minister chose during the course of his remarks to talk about free trade and regional development. The Minister will know that in the weeks leading up to the issuing of the final text of the free trade agreement, I and many other members of my Party, in the House and elsewhere, have categorically, repeatedly, day after day put the question to the Prime Minister. We asked him if there would be language in the final text which would specifically exempt regional development programs from U.S. trade law. That question, clearly, simply and without preamble, was put repeatedly to the Prime Minister of Canada.
While a direct answer to that question was very carefully never given, as I know from reviewing the transcripts, the Prime Minister or whoever else was answering in his absence always left the impression that there was nothing to be concerned about, that regional development would be covered and not to worry about it. 1 challenge any Hon. Member of the House to read the final text of the free trade agreement and to show me where there is a written exemption from U.S. trade law for regional development programs, because no such wording or exemption exists.
In the face of the lack of an exemption and of previous rulings made by the U.S. Commerce Department, Atlantic Canadians are correct to be concerned about free trade and regional development. That is why the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce, during committee hearings in Atlantic Canada, refused to endorse free trade. It refused to endorse it because of the uncertainty that existed at that stage over whether or not an exemption would exist.
I invite Hon. Members to read the softwood lumber ruling of last year made by the U.S. Department of Commerce. They will find within that ruling made by the U.S. Department of Commerce an almost categorical and complete list of all the regional development programs in this country that are countervailable and subject to U.S. trade law. We all know that one of the clauses in the free trade agreement provides that all existing rulings made by the Department of Commerce or the U.S. courts on trade action stand.
Given that the softwood lumber decision stands, given that almost all of our regional development programs are listed as being countervailable, and given that there is no exemption for regional development programs in the final text, how can the Minister of Transport rise in his place and tell us today that we ought not be concerned about the future of regional development programs?

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
That brings me to my last point. We are told, though it is difficult to know, that the Government has designed the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to respond to the private sector, period. There is nothing wrong with designing a program to respond to the private sector, providing that there are complementary programs to continue the work of building up the infrastructure and the public sector at the same time.
To clear away the smoke and mirrors so that the people may understand what is happening, basically what is happening is that the Government of Canada has said that it is out of the business of infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. It is no longer interested in that. Whether it is highways, wharves and harbour development, water and sewer, educational facilities, post-secondary and primary or otherwise, or any of those kinds of programs or infrastructures, the basic underpinnings of the ability of any region to be competitive, the Government of Canada is out of the business. The Government will tailor this program and these funds primarily to respond to the private sector, period.
If a person lives in a part of Atlantic Canada in which the basic infrastructure is not up to national standards and is looking to ACOA to solve the problem or to assist in that problem, forget it. If a person lives in Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, St. John's or Charlottetown where there is basic industrial infrastructure in place, then that person can apply. It might be wise for that person to call GCI so that it would represent him, but he can apply. However, those who live in parts of Atlantic Canada which do not even have basic decent highway systems, where every summer the choice is between running the fish plant or having a bath at night because there is not enough water for both, where the school system is dilapidated and falling down around their ears, and there are far too many places like that in Atlantic Canada, then ACOA is not for them. It is not their agency. ACOA is a closed door.
No conscientious Member from Atlantic Canada, recognizing that continued reality of Atlantic Canada, a reality of which we are not proud and not happy, can accept that this is the primary development initiative of the Government of Canada. We cannot accept that the philosophy that those who have nothing will get nothing and those who have infrastructure may hire GCI and might get a grant is the philosophy of winners and losers, and that those who happen to be the losers in a losing region are told: "Tough luck, buddy, move to Toronto". No, I cannot accept that kind of philosophy.
When DREE was established in 1969, exactly the opposite prevailed as the raison d'etre for establishing a department focused entirely on regional development. The philosophy was not that we ought to pour money into the region for a 10-week cycle but that we ought to recognize that before we can cultivate and build an entrepreneurial spirit in the private sector we must first put in place the underpinnings, the infrastructure necessary to be on an equal footing and to be competitive in the Canadian or the Atlantic market-place.
A lot of progress was made. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) and I represent a part of Newfoundland where only in the last 10 to 15 years, and really only in the last five or six years, a highway covering an area of 500 miles of coastline has been completed. Just 15 or 20 years ago the highway was a cow path. The best bet to get up the coast was by boat. There has not been a paved road up the northern peninsula for all that long. We are just now in the process-


Mr. Johnson:: Only since the PC Government got in.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity- Conception (Mr. Johnson) knows what I am saying. The road was finished before the PC Government got elected.
What are the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador and I doing now? We are now trying to get basic infrastructure like water and sewer into these communities to allow industrial and secondary development in the fishery. However, the ACOA program is not interested in that kind of development.
We endorse the basic principle of more autonomy and more decisions being taken in the region. However, we only endorse it when it is real, when the board has a mandate to be autonomous and not merely an echo sounding-board for Tory thought in Ottawa. We endorse the principle of targeting a region to try to come to grips with regional development programs, but not when the Government walks away from the responsibility, objectives and aims of developing the infrastructure of the region.
We look forward to seeing this Bill brought to committee. Indeed, we look forward to giving the many agencies and groups in Atlantic Canada which are not represented on this board and were not even invited to participate on it an opportunity to have their say about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Before this process is finished, we shall be proposing amendments to ensure that this agency, if it is to be established, functions as an agency that works on behalf of the people of Atlantic Canada on the initiative of Atlantic Canada and not as an agency that functions as a pre-election ploy on the part of the Conservative Government of Canada which finds itself in desperate need of raising its profile in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) speaking on behalf of the Senate on this issue. I have also listened with great interest to my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), speaking on the same issue. I am pleased to have an opportunity to put to the House my views on what is probably the most important economic issue for Canada from now until the end of this century; that is, the issue of regional development. That is not just my view or that of my Party, it is also the view expressed by the Economic Council of Canada in its report released September 30, 1987. That Council looked at the next
January 18, 1988

five years and said that the national economy is likely to expand steadily in coming years but uneven regional growth will be the country's major economic problem.
In dealing with that issue we do not require a Government response which is either a hoax or an attempt to baffle and confuse the people of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, into thinking it has done something where others have failed. I will repeat the figures quoted by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe with respect to the Government's reduction in the amount of money spent on regional development in Atlantic Canada. Over the last three years it amounted to a reduction of $1 billion per year. The Government has replaced that with what it calls $1 billion, but it is actually $200 million a year. That tells the people of Canada how important the Government thinks the most serious economic problem in Canada is. The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was criticized for cutting $3 billion from regional development funding since 1984. It was also pointed out that the share of regional development dollars did not flow to the east or to the west as one might expect, but into central Canada.
The Minister of Transport quoted from the Throne Speech. That speech also said that spending more money by itself has not solved the problem. How hypocritical can the Government get? It takes $3 billion from regional development funding and then lectures Canadians on how spending money by itself will not solve the problem. I can tell you for sure that removing $3 billion from regional development will certainly not solve the problem. Giving back $200 million a year over five years is not going to solve the problem.
Since Confederation, 1 suppose, we have had certain regional disparities. Given the elaborate attention paid to the idea of regional development by previous Governments we would expect to see these disparities narrow. Yet that has not happened. In fact, the disparity in the unemployment rate between Ontario, where it is the lowest in the country, and the Atlantic provinces has increased over the last five years, not decreased. Relatively speaking, Atlantic Canadians are worse off now than they were five, six or seven years ago. That is not progress. In fact, it underscores exactly what the Economic Council of Canada has said, that regional disparity is the most serious economic problem we face.
It is not merely an economic problem either. It affects individuals and communities all across Atlantic Canada. People have to face the prospect of unemployment and the loss of dignity associated with the inability to contribute to the economy and their own lives. Youth unemployment is extremely serious. The ability of women to participate in the labour force has been diminished.
The Minister of Transport tried to brag about the past three years of Conservative Government, particularly with respect to Atlantic Canada. Yet Atlantic Canada fared very badly with
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
respect to regional development. During the first 18 months of Conservative Government the expenditure in Newfoundland, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country, was 1 per cent of the dollars available for regional development. If unemployment and other economic problems were spread evenly across the country on the basis of population we would have expected to get at least 2 per cent. Yet, no, under a Conservative Government Newfoundland received 1 per cent.
During that period of Tory administration, we have seen a reduction of regional development spending and a distortion of the spending in favour of central Canada at the expense of the region that needed it most, Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Manly:: Where was Crosbie?


Jack Harris: Where was the Minister of Transport then? Where was Senator Murray then? Where were the other Ministers and Members from Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces when this was going on?
Even during the five-year period from 1981 to 1985 Newfoundland received on average 4.5 per cent of federal regional development dollars, or four and a half times the amount it received in the first 18 months of the Tory Government. Therefore I ask the House to reflect on what the Minister has said, given those astounding figures.
The Government has decreased regional development funding by $3 billion from 1984 to the present and yet it pretends that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is going to provide us with an answer to development in Atlantic Canada. The Government takes away $1 billion and gives back $200 million. That amounts to 20 cents on the dollar and it appears to be all we can expect. It is a hoax, a sleight of hand that the Government is trying to perpetrate on the Canadian people.
It has been suggested that what is happening is a decentralization of decision-making in all of Atlantic Canada. That is another hoax. Not only that, it is a derogation of the responsibility of the federal Government which is trying to get rid of the responsibility for regional development. We have heard the Minister of Transport say today that Atlantic Canadians are responsible for their own destiny, just as the poor are responsible for their poverty. The approach is to blame Atlantic Canadians; it is their fault, and they have to solve the problem. We have had enough of it.
One of those famous Atlantic Ministers who is going to be responsible for ACOA calls it the last kick at the can. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be the last kick at the can as far as development programs for this region are concerned. In March of last year the former Public Works Minister stated that they had tried just about everything in the Atlantic region. They are now throwing up their hands. Two hundred million dollars a year will be the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canadians.

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
The Minister of Transport has said that setting up a board and allowing decisions to be made in Atlantic Canada is the last kick at the can, and they will wait four or five years to see if it works. The people of Atlantic Canada will not wait four or five years to have a hoax foisted upon them by the Government. The people of Atlantic Canada cannot afford to wait four or five years to have the Government of Canada look after their most serious problems.
The Minister of Transport says that decentralization is taking place and decisions will be made in Atlantic Canada. However that is not what the Senator said. In June, 1987, he said that the decisions will be made by him here in Ottawa. That is what Senator Murray said when asked where decentralized decision-making will take place. The final decisions will be made here in Ottawa by the Senator and if we have any questions about them we will ask the Minister of Transport to ask the Senator what he has to say about them.
The Government will take away $1 billion a year and put back $200 million, 20 cents on the dollars. The Government is telling Atlantic Canadians that it is now up to them to make a success of it. The Government will give them 20-cent dollars to work with and will put the responsibility on them. If this fails after four or five years the Government will blame Atlantic Canadians. It has absolved itself of responsibility for regional development.
The Government has set up a board of cronies and appointees with a few government people from the various provinces. 1 understand that this board represents the regional decisionmaking. However, in the legislation itself the board has no power, no decision-making authority. It is estalished by Section 18 of the Act. It is to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister. The object of the board is to assist the agency in the exercise of its powers and in the performance of its duties and functions. It is only to assist the agency. It has no decision-making power and no authority. Nowhere throughout the rest of the Act is there any mention of what role the board will play. It exists and can be called together from time to time by the president who operates under the direction of the Minister.
The Minister has already said that the decisions will be made by him in Ottawa. That is another part of the sham that the Government is trying to foist upon the people of Atlantic Canada. The Government has put all the Atlantic Canada regional development programs under one department, which is a good thing. At least there is a focus for Atlantic Canada in this legislation.
There will be input from business people, a very narrow sector of the Atlantic economy, but there are no representatives from a very substantial part of the Atlantic Canada enterprise, the co-operative sector. There are no representatives from the very substantial regional development councils,
associations, and corporations which exist in Atlantic Canada. These people are concerned about development in their parts of the country, but there is no representation by them. We have only business people, insurance executives, fundraisers for the Tory Party, and one person at least from each of the provinces who appears to be a representative of a government secretariat. There will be some input from Atlantic Canada but the decision-making has not changed substantially. We are not receiving any new thrust or effort through this legislation.
In the history of regional disparity there has been no improvement in Atlantic Canada. Elizabeth Beale is an economist and specialist analysing the Atlantic regional problems and related policy. She is the chief economist of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. She has reported that there has been very little improvement in any of the major indicators of regional disparity between the Atlantic provinces and the country as a whole since the 1960s. The gap in the unemployment rate is proportionately the same as it was 15 years ago. Personal income has risen but that is not related to earned income. It is attributed primarily to the increase in personal transfers. There has been no narrowing of the gap between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country. That is deplored by this Party. The Government's record in regional development is atrocious, as is its attitude and that of the Minister of Transport.
We were not really surprised when the Minister of Transport said that people in Atlantic Canada should stop bellyaching, that they are better off than Bangladesh and the Third World. That is the bench-mark of the Government and the Minister of Transport. That is why he takes away a dollar and gives back 20 cents and then says that success depends on Atlantic Canadians, that the Government will wait four or five years to see whether it works. That is the Government's attitude on regional development and that is why the Government must be replaced.
Regional development must be a national effort taken seriously by the federal Government and the Cabinet. It must be integrated into the national economy. It is fine to say that decision-making has been decentralized and put in the region and that we have flexibility. We need flexibility. The Government had to admit-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before 1 call it one o'clock, the Member will have another 20 minutes to speak when we recommence after Question Period. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
January 18, 1988


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr, Speaker, last week Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) met with his U.S, counterpart to discuss common issues. We are told that in that conversation the Secretary of State raised the question of acid rain and pretended that there is hope in obtaining cuts in the U.S. pollution coming into Canada.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs forgotten that because of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) decision to endorse the five-year U.S. clean coal technology program, the U.S. administration does not have to listen to Canada? Canada is now stuck with that endorsement and the Secretary of State knows it. Clearly the Government goofed.
If the Secretary of State really wants to obtain acid gas pollution cuts in the United States, he would assemble the costs and prepare a bill for damages to be presented by the Prime Minister to President Reagan at the April summit in Washington and resume the global strategy abandoned in 1985, namely, to put pressure on the United States to cut emissions.



NATIONAL ARCHIVES


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like, once again, to express my grave concern about the precarious state of accommodation for Canada's Public Archives. I first raised this issue on June 6, 1986, during the debate on the Archives Act.
On December 8, last year, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture tabled its report on the Public Archives. It found that the little space available for archival holdings and government records is spread over 14 locations in the National Capital Region. Moreover, this space does not meet the minimum atmospheric and environmental standards for the long-term preservation of our national heritage. The committee recommended the construction of a new Public Archives facility, located close to the National Library buildings.
The picture of burst pipes destroying our historical and cultural treasures, an embarrassment and threat to our sense of identity, was once again brought home during the Christmas recess when water severely damaged many priceless records in the Public Archives building itself.
This is the third time major damage has been caused to valuable collections of the library and archives since 1 first warned the House about this matter a year and a half ago.
I urge the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to act immediately on the recommendations of the committee so that we can enter the next century without having lost the records of our past.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, at the National Conference on Technology and Innovation held just over a week ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the establishment of scientific centres of excellence.
Manitobans were shocked to read statements by unnamed senior civil servants that Manitoba universities would be frozen out of consideration for these institutes as long as Premier Pawley was the Premier of Manitoba.
Manitobans, from labour, business and government, and members of the Legislature in all Parties, protested when the CF-18 contract was awarded to Canadair because it was obvious that the bid submitted by Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg came in at a lower price. Recent documents released as a result of inquiries by The Globe and Mail and Winnipeg Free Press indicate that not only was the Bristol bid lower, it was better technically.
People in Manitoba want fair treatment by the Government and they call on the Government, particularly Cabinet Ministers from Manitoba, to see that Manitoba is treated fairly.




Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, last week some 200 of the nation's leaders with an interest in research and development participated in the National Conference on Technology and Innovation, chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
In his opening remarks the Prime Minister announced federal funding of $1.3 billion for new science and technology initiatives. Part of these funds is to create centres of excellence at a number of universities across Canada, and the creation of 2,500 undergraduate scholarships in science and engineering.

in his closing remarks the Prime Minister also announced a $10 million public awareness program to make Canadians more aware of the importance of research and development and its economic and social linkages.
Three themes were discussed in the forum workshops. They were revitalizing established industries; developing higher value products; fostering technology intensive firms.
Participants enthusiastically endorsed the new funding for the centres of excellence, the scholarships and public awareness program, but urged the Government to re-examine how tax incentives, advance rulings, and procurement could better assist research and technology intensive companies.
All agreed that the forum marked a new beginning and that Canada had turned a page in developing a knowledge intensive society.
Knowing your interest in this subject, Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that you would have been proud to have been there.



THE COURTS


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Ontario, we saw a case of sexual assault where justice has yet to be done. A woman suffered sexual assault with violence. She was beaten and suffered injuries.
Judge Vanini's decision in this case was shocking and irresponsible. He imposed a sentence of ninety days, to be served only on weekends because the defendant came from a good family. The judge decided the victim had suffered no serious psychological effects and that the defendant should stay in his family environment for the sake of his rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the lack of concern and lack of sensitivity shown by Judge Vanini in this case. The judge seems to be punishing the victim and protecting the aggressor. The kind of stereotyping we see constantly in Canada's courts must stop.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask all Canadian judges to seriously consider their attitude to women and what they suffer in cases of sexual assault, and I want to ask the Government to implement as soon as possible the recommendations of the Archambault report on sentence harmonization.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, until the middle of the 80s, Quebec's outlying regions were neglected by the previous Goverment as far as regional development was concerned. The northwestern part of Quebec, the Saguenay- Lac Saint-Jean area and the North Shore, as well as the Gaspe, the Lower St. Lawrence and the Magdalen Islands have always had special needs.
In 1984, the new Government, the team led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), made these outlying areas one of its priorities for regional development.
In 1987, as part of the renewed federal policy for economic development, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, at the request of Cabinet, started a thorough evaluation of the economic requirements of these rural regions.
At Sept-Iles on December 22 last year, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) proposed a new regional development plan. Federal and provincial authorities have agreed to co-operate so that the plan can become effective as of April I, 1988.
Mr. Speaker, while the Opposition is still talking about these issues in Ottawa, we Conservative Members are doing something about them.



THE COURTS


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, last week the women of this country were shocked to hear that a man convicted of sexual assault in Sault Ste Marie received only a very light sentence.
A report published by the Metro Toronto Action Committee on Violence against Women and Children submits that judges in our judicial system tend to be more lenient with men of their own socio-economic class when these men are found guilty of sexual assault. This conclusion supports the arguments of many feminists who work with victims of sexual violence.
There are still so many stereotypes and myths that influence decisions made in criminal courts. The federal Government and the provinces must find a way to educate judges who preside over courts responsible for prosecuting sexual assailants.
It is imperative that Canadian women have access to a truly impartial judicial system. Otherwise, women who have been assaulted will be victimized a second time by the sentences handed out to the men responsible for these crimes.
January 18, 1988

[DOT]	(1405)



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise in this House today with sadness in my heart and deep, sincere sympathy for the friends and relatives of the three innocent people brutally murdered in Chilliwack, British Columbia. An alleged repeat murderer not only murdered these three but also murdered the sister of one of my constituents in 1971.
It was just last year that some Members of this House voted against the reinstatement of capital punishment. They did this in spite of the wishes of the majority of Canadians who wanted changes to deal with the inefficiencies in our present judicial system. One of the main arguments was the fear of prosecuting an innocent person. Well, Sir, since that vote was taken we have lost four innocent people at the hands of alleged repeat murderers.
My respect for this House dictates that I accept its decision. However, I feel it is incumbent on this House to deal immediately with the system that has proven ineffective in dealing with those who brutally murder innocent people. We cannot bring back those already lost, but we can prevent recurrences of this nature, and we must act now.
I believe we must develop a system that incarcerates murderers for their entire natural life. Failing that, this House should reconsider its position on capital punishment.

[DOT]	(1410)



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Government to act to get grain moving through the grain port at Prince Rupert in British Columbia. This strike, which has crippled a large percentage of western Canada's shipments of grain for export, is having a serious affect on western grain farmers.
Last Friday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) called on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to meet with the two sides involved in the Prince Rupert grain terminal strike this weekend and to persuade them to accept binding arbitration. He said that the Minister should be ready to suggest the name of an arbitrator to the parties.
Prairie farmers continue to face severely depressed grain prices. Prices are the lowest since the Great Depression. The last thing farmers need is to have grain backed up for weeks on
end. It is estimated that the farmers have already lost over $50 million.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has said that the grain transportation system is backed up, that elevators are clogged, and that farmers cannot deliver their grain. In addition, the Canadian Wheat Board is losing sales and Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain is suffering. Both sides in the dispute must recognize that in failing to agree to binding arbitration they run the risk of having it imposed on them through legislation.




Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, have you ever been robbed? Once again thousands of western Canadian grain farmers have been robbed of valuable grain sales, robbed of much needed income because of 69 union members and four grain companies unable to settle a strike at the Prince Rupert exporting grain terminal.
Over the years strikes and lockouts of grain handlers, longshoremen, rail unions and inspectors have taken the very food from mouths of farmers and their families. When grain producers right across western Canada are suffering from drastically reduced commodity prices while the average salary of a grain handler at Prince Rupert approaches $40,000 when benefits are included, farmers have a right to be steaming hot mad.
I urge the Government to legislate grain handlers back to work immediately and, further, to declare all aspects of grain handling and transportation systems affecting Canada's grain exports an essential service in order that the interests of western grain farmers and all of Canada best be served.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ISSUANCE OF ALL-NEWS TELEVISION LICENCE TO CBC

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, while individual Tory MPs lobbying on behalf of a private company remind us of the long-promised lobbying legislation, the spectre of these backbenchers, who have loathed the CBC since the days of Julliet, pressuring the Cabinet to intervene and quash the CRTC decision to award the all-news TV service to the CBC reminds Canadians that the hallmark of the Government has been political interference and political manipulation.

January 18, 1988
Oral Questions
Blatant political patronage, the abuse of conflict of interest guidelines by certain Cabinet Ministers, and the politically motivated CF-18 decision were events which led the Commons Broadcasting Committee to advise the Government not to overturn CRTC decisions on broadcast licences. However, Tory backbenchers want the CRTC not to be an independent agency that acts at arm's length from the Government but to be subject to political intervention and political manipulation.
The CBC, with its ready access to 153 news gathering cameras in Canada and over 400 available world-wide, is a broadcasting strand which binds the Canadian fabric together and which provides Canadians with a sense of unity. While the federal Government has now inextricably linked us economically with the United States and moved us closer in both social and economic terms as well as in political terms, for the Cabinet now to intervene and bow to these company lobbyists would be yet another step toward the Americanization of Canada.



HOUSING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, of all the many concerns and problems that my constituents discussed with me over the Christmas recess, the lack of affordable housing in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area was the one raised most frequently.
Whether it was a young person looking for an apartment in a market where the rental vacancy rate is only 0.1 per cent, or a couple trying to buy their first home in a market where even the most modest house costs over $200,000, or a senior citizen facing a substantial rent increase with no prospect of alternative accommodation, all had first-hand experience with the problem, and understandably all are looking to Governments for solutions and for leadership.
There are no instant solutions, but the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can help to provide leadership by making federally owned land in Metropolitan Toronto available for affordable housing projects. One of his own consultants estimated that 15,000 such housing units could be built on federally owned surplus land at Downsview Airport.
How about it, Mr. Minister?
[ Translation]



JOB CREATION-GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic for Youth, I have a duty to criticize the irresponsible attitude taken by the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) in his announcement last week on Challenge 88. Young Canadians are right to be upset. This announcement remains well below what they have a right to expect, and shows the Conservative Government has not made any effort at all to help them. The former version of the Program has not been improved, except with respect to dropouts, and on top of that, the budget is less than what it was four years ago.
In 1984, the Liberal Government spent $200 million on its job creation program for youths. In 1988, all the Conservative Government has to offer is a paltry $180 million. And I refuse to buy the excuse by the Minister of State (Youth), who says that this budget freeze is normal and acceptable considering the drop of unemployment among young people. So many young people are still unemployed that it is hardly appropriate for us to sit back and relax. Drop-outs are not necessarily young people who are not interested in continuing their education. Many have to drop out because they cannot afford a college or university education. In many of Canada's regions, the unemployment rate has risen to unacceptable levels. This is also true in Quebec, where youth unemployment is around 13.7 per cent. There is no excuse for letting this Program stagnate.
What about the national youth strategy! More than two years ago, the Minister promised us this strategy, and since then: Nothing! Improvisation is the name of the game. Too bad for the Minister, because now people will be able to say at the end of his mandate that if he had really tried, he would have been a star player and probably the recruit of the year in the national improvisation league!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns misleading statements made by two of his Ministers on defence matters.
First, I would like to deal with statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who stated in the House of Commons on September 10, 1985, in response to opposition prodding, that there is-and 1 use the Secretary of

January 18, 1988

State's own words-"no substitute for Canada's full sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic .. , Full sovereignty is vital to Canada's security-it is vital to Canada's-identity . . . We will accept no substitute . . . Any co-operation with the United States-shall only be on the basis of full respect for Canada's sovereignty". Those were the words of the right hon. gentleman.
In view of the fact that last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs negotiated and signed an agreement with the United States which fails to recognize Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic, which makes no mention of American submarines patrolling our waters, and which in effect clearly weakens Canada's legal claim to the Arctic, why would the Prime Minister tolerate a senior Minister and colleague negotiating and signing an agreement with the United States which clearly violates a declaration and undertaking that he gave to the House of Commons?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before that agreement was signed the United States did not acknowledge its need to seek Canada's consent before the transit through our Northwest Passage of U.S. government owned or operated ice-breakers.
As a result of that agreement, the United States now acknowledges and has a legal obligation to seek Canada's permission before there is a transit through our Northwest Passage of government owned or operated ice-breakers. That is a small but significant step forward in emphasizing Canada's control over our North.
As the Leader of the Opposition will understand, one of the ways to establish sovereignty is not to talk about it in empty phrases, as the Liberal Party did for so many years, but actually to go out and assert control. That is what we are doing.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Bring back Flora.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ALLEGED CONTRADICTION RELATING TO AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, by his actions, by signing the contract with the United States, the Minister contradicted the clear statement he made in the House. I repeat, he said: "We will accept no substitute. Any co-operation with the United States shall only be on the basis of full respect for Canada's sovereignty". That was quite clear. There was no misunderstanding.
I repeat: Why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs mislead this Parliament during the debate? Why did he negotiate and sign an agreement with the United States that clearly contradicts what he said before the Parliament of Canada?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is repeating in French the question he just put in English. Maybe he never heard of simultaneous translation. It's a fact of life in Canada, and it is also a fact there has been no change in the Canadian position on our sovereignty and our control over the North. The change is that before the agreement was signed with the United States, the U.S. did not recognize it was necessary to seek and obtain Canada's consent before they could go through with icebreakers controlled or directed by the U.S. Government. It was not necessary before, but now it is. That is a step forward, a very concrete step, and concrete steps help demonstrate our sovereignty.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is as vague in French as he is in English, and as contradictory in either language. He is to be commended for his bilingualism.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we also learned over the parliamentary recess that a second Minister has misled Canadians on defence matters. The Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion told the House of Commons on October 31, 1986, that the two bids for the CF-18 maintenance contract were:
-very close on technical merit and on cost.
Documents produced by the Government's own experts and only revealed under Access to Information legislation demonstrate clearly that the Minister was not telling the truth and misled the House.
In these circumstances involving a contract worth over $1 billion, can the Prime Minister tell us why that Minister is still among his colleagues in the Government of Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my right hon. colleague by saying that it was not on December 31 but on October 31 when I made that statement.


John Napier Turner: I said October 31.


Robert René de Cotret: It is a statement that I stand by. I mentioned very clearly that on the price side the two bids were very close. I mentioned in reply to further questions in this House that there was a differential of $3.5 million on a $100 million contract for four years. I maintained that the bid by Canadair, as I mentioned then, was one of $104.4 million and the bid by

January 18, 1988
Oral Questions
Bristol was $100.54 million. 1 maintain, as 1 did then, that on the technical criteria, which was the second evaluation criteria, Canadair had a score of 843 out of 1000 and Bristol had a score of 926 out of 1000. Given that they were both excellent companies, both very qualified, with the price differential very slight, we felt very strongly as a Government that the technology transfer for the benefit of Canadian industry would be best accomplished by giving the contract to Canadair than by giving it to Cast-18 or Bristol.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. By refusing to take part in that electoral charade yesterday, the Haitian people showed how much they are striving for justice, change and democracy. Is the Conservative Government now willing to admit its mistake in endorsing for months the military junta of General Namphy, and what does the Canadian Government intend to do to force General Namphy to hold truly democratic elections?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on being appointed spokesman for his party on international issues. We both have a lot of experience in this House, and I hope and trust that we shall be able to work together effectively.
In my statement this morning, I said that the Canadian Government believes that yesterday's events represent a clear judgment by the Haitian people that the elections were not a democratic success. They do not give a democratic verdict in our opinion. We shall review our relations with Haiti, including our development assistance. As the Minister for External Relations indicated last week, the Canadian ambassador to Haiti will be here next week to consult with the Government on possible means to ensure that Canadian activities can promote the evolution of democracy in Haiti and also benefit the Haitian people.


CONVENING OF MEETING OF MOST IMPORTANT COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN AID TO HAITIAN PEOPLE-HOLDING OF INQUIRY -GOVERNMENT POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 accept the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the least that the Government can do under the circumstances.
First, 1 would like to ask the Minister whether he is willing to call on behalf of the Canadian Government a meeting of the
major contributors of assistance to the Haitian people to exert pressure on General Namphy as soon as possible.
Second, is the Minister able to assure us that there will be a full investigation of Canadian assistance to Haiti to guarantee that our money will no longer be used to finance the Machiavelian plans of the military junta?


Charles Joseph Clark: Three things, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to consider the effectiveness of the first proposal of the Hon. Member. If it can be effective, I would intend to pursue it.
Second, the Canadian Government has already consulted all countries which have important relations with Haiti, namely France, the United States and neighbouring Caribbean countries. My colleague, the Minister for External Relations, has met directly with the prime ministers of certain neighbouring countries in the Caribbeans.
Third, I believe that it would be very useful for Hon. Members and other people to learn about the situation in Haiti as concerns development assistance and other matters. I hope that our ambassador will be able to meet directly with parliamentarians and other interested parties when he is here. Tomorrow, the Minister for External Relations will meet with non-government organizations which operate in Haiti to discuss the most effective means to take concerted action because, in our view, our objectives should be, first, to ensure a truly democratic situation in Haiti, and second, to maintain the historic support of the Canadian people to the poorest members of Haitian society.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General.
According to an article published in today's Globe and Mail, Canada is the home of a terrorist. For a few months now the Government has had information concerning this individual.
My question is quite straightforward: Why did the Government not arrest this terrorist?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that in the summer of 1986 a Mr. Mohammad applied for landed immigrant status to Canada through our office in Madrid, Spain. As a result of inquiries made to Spanish authorities a positive response was obtained and, as a result, our liaison officer in Spain advised Immigration that there was not a security problem. That
January 18, 1988

information was obtained, I may say, because of false and misleading information which this Mr. Mohammad gave to our officer in Spain.
When we subsequently received additional information, we again conducted interviews of this Mr. Mohammad in Canada and, after a number of months, obtained a positive identification of this gentleman. That was in the late spring of 1987. The information was then turned over to Immigration which has been proceeding since that time to institute deportation proceedings against the gentleman in question.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the information made available and now confirmed in the House by the Minister reveals clearly that the individual in question lied in his application to come here as a bona fide immigrant, could the Government explain why nothing substantial has been done for many months? Why have charges not been laid? Why has no action been taken to ensure that this person is removed from Canada?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the House, the gentleman in question was interviewed here in Canada immediately after his arrival. Fingerprints and other documentation were obtained at that time. It then took a number of months to obtain a positive ID from the other countries in Europe as to the proper identification of this gentleman.
The House must understand that he is of Lebanese background. There has been a great deal of turmoil and problems in that country. It took until then to make a positive ID. The information was then turned over to Immigration officials who, since that time in the early summer of 1987, have been preparing their case against the gentleman in question.


REQUEST FOR DEPORTATION OF INDIVIDUAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while the Government has been busy bringing in bogus legislation allegedly dealing with the refugee problem, keeping out, if it had its way, all kinds of illegitimate-


Some Hon. Members:: Right!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -all kinds of legitimate refugees-well, the people of Canada understand very well the bogus games the Government is up to in passing the buck.
Having heard the answer of the Minister, I want to ask him again, when we have a clear violation of the Immigration Act by a known terrorist, why has the Government not acted promptly to get that known terrorist out of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Pass the legislation.
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: As the
hon. gentleman knows, as soon as the positive ID was obtained, the information was turned over to officials in Immigration. There is a due process under the Act which has been followed and that indeed is being done and has been done, and I think Immigration is now in a position to proceed further on the matter.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that as a result of the Government's negligence a convicted terrorist was allowed to obtain landed immigrant status in Canada. As a result of the Government's gross negligence, a threat to the national security of Canada and Canadians has been created. Is the Solicitor General prepared to assume responsibility on behalf of the Government for this bizarre series of events, and will he not admit today in the House that this individual is in Canada because of the negligence of the Government and its officials?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised the House, the gentleman is in Canada because he gave false and misleading evidence to our liaison officer in Spain. That official checked with authorities over there, found nothing, and advised Immigration here that he had not found anything. As a result of that he was allowed to come to Canada.
Immediately upon obtaining additional information, CSIS interviewed the gentleman, got fingerprints, and over the course of the next number of months found evidence that positively identified him as a terrorist. That was then turned over to Immigration officials who are pursuing their case with respect to deportation.


ADMITTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL THROUGH PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Immigration. Given that immigration officials at Pearson International Airport were placed on an urgent alert in advance of this individual's arrival in Canada on February 27 of last year, why did they admit him to Canada rather than intercepting and, as a security precaution, detaining him at that time? Will the Minister ensure, as advocated by a committee report dated 1986, that changes are introduced immediately to the role that CSIS plays in immigration security clearance, because it is not doing it to the degree Canadians deserve in order to protect the integrity of and confidence in the system.
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the same false information given to the security agency in Spain was used to gain access to Canada.
The individual in question used 21 different names for identification purposes and when he arrived at the Canadian

January 18, 1988
Oral Questions
border the name appearing on the official visa did not match any on the lists we had. This is why the individual was admitted.
But again, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to correct a false statement made by my colleague from York South-Weston to the effect that Canadian security was jeopardized. That same day or the day after this individual entered Canada we were aware of his whereabouts. He was followed by the security agency, or the RCMP in this case. At no time ever did this individual constitute a threat.
As to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is quite satisfied with the security agency services. There is no question of changing the system.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE BILL-MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who met last week with U.S. Secretary of State Shultz. Did the Minister discuss with Mr. Shultz the omnibus trade Bill which was so importantly stressed by the external affairs committee in its report, and did he obtain assurances that that Bill will not apply to Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the United States is fully aware of our concerns and, we believe, bound by the agreement that was signed in Washington with respect to the primacy of the Free Trade Agreement relating to trade relations touched by that agreement after January 1, 1988.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. SHULTZ PROMISED REJECTION OF TRADE BILL BY PRESIDENT REAGAN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This important question requires a direct answer. Did Mr. Shultz give the assurance that this trade bill would be turned down by Mr. Reagan? Did he give this assurance?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is another matter entirely. But the reply concerning the relationship between the Omnibus Trade Bill and the Free Trade Agreement signed by Canada and the United States is to the effect that in the free trade document itself, there is a committment made by the United States which deals directly with the issues raised by the Hon.
Member and which provides Canadians with the necessary guarantees.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has issued four new offshore lobster licences against the advice of his own advisory board and of the Minister of Fisheries for the Province of Nova Scotia. Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, and the Eastern Fishermen's Federation have called for the immediate cancellation of these licences.
Will the Minister respect the integrity of the lobster fisheries management system and cancel these licences immediately?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly shall respect the integrity of the lobster management system which allowed me to add four licences to the over 6,000 lobster licences in Nova Scotia on a basis which was biologically sound and managerially prudent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The selection process was absolutely fair and according to a set of criteria prepared by my own officials. If the Member wants to ask further questions I can certainly elaborate on this initiative which will produce new employment and new economic growth in Nova Scotia, which I hope the Hon. Member would support.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, that selection was anything but fair. It was done in secret and the licences were given to Tory hacks. The selection had nothing to do with scientific research and everything to do with political patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the Hon. Member would not want to get into debate in a preamble, which he is getting very close to doing. The Hon. Member will put his question.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans using lobster pots for even more Tory pork-barrels?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 18, 1988


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, speaking of lobster pots and pork-barrels, I ask that the Elouse consider the basis on which six of the eight original offshore lobster licences were awarded to one particular family by a Liberal Government, and the Hon. Member can decide for himself what the politics of that family were.
The offshore lobster fishery has the potential for significant new development as have a number of other offshore fisheries in that province such as the offshore clam fishery.
It is passing strange that whenever we have an opportunity, based on scientific advice and according to a fair selection process, to create more jobs and employment, the Opposition is forever critical.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology who is also responsible for the lack of action in the development of the Montreal East area since his government came to power three and a half years ago.
Following the losses of 400 jobs at Vickers and 150 more at the CIP over the Holiday season the number of unemployed in that area has increased to over 20,000. Would the government be prepared to support training and retraining programs for the workers who have been laid off in the Montreal East area, those especially who are over 50 years of age? Could the Minister assure the House that any assistance program directed at Montreal East will take into account both the human problems of the unemployed workers as well as the financial and competitive difficulties faced by the companies in that area?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this government has always been concerned with the financial, economic and human problems of the Montreal East area. My honourable friend has just referred to the period since 1984. For his information, I should like to provide him with a few statistics on what this government has done for the Montreal East area.
The Federal Government has directly approved seventy six projects representing a total cost of $294.6 million, with $256.7 million in admissible costs, nearly $40 million in authorized payments, which have resulted in the creation of 2,468 new jobs and the preservation of 2,499 old ones. And this, Mr. Speaker, does not even include the 2,000 person-
Oral Questions
years of employment at Bombardier for the building of locomotives which 1 announced recently in Montreal East.


OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE OF MONTREAL'S EAST END GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister neglected to mention that he failed to respond to a report submitted by the Montreal East economic renewal committee in September. The people and unions of Montreal East are still waiting for the Minister's response. According to the report, 1,000 workers are unemployed, 7,500 have been laid off and 10,000 are living on welfare. My supplementary to the Minister is as follows: Does the Government intend to maintain Montreal East as a major centre for heavy industry or will it just be a location for service industries where all these people would then have to work, selling hamburgers at MacDonald's?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to respond to the preamble to the Hon. Member's question. We have examined the report on Montreal East, and in the spirit of cooperation we have maintained with all Canadian provinces, I discussed the report several times with my Quebec counterpart. We are now preparing a joint comprehensive and positive response to the recommendations of the Pichette report. I am meeting my counterpart again this Friday when we will try and finalize a joint position for the federal and provincial governments which will respond to the economic, financial and social needs of Montreal East.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Up to the middle of the 80s, rural regions in Quebec had been neglected by the previous Government as far as economic development was concerned, and federal action on regional development in Quebec had focussed on the more industrialized regions in the southwest. Could the Minister give the House an indication today of the kind of economic development plan the federal Government has in mind for Quebec's outlying areas?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as you know,-and I am sure this will interest the Hon. Member as well-as far as regional economic development is concerned, we have embarked on a program that focusses particularly on outlying regions, which tend to experience major problems with respect to employment

January 18, 1988
OraI Questions
and economic development. Mr. Speaker, we have also made a conscious effort to involve local communities in this initiative. We want to see consultation. We want community participation, not only in regional programming but also in the implementation of regional programs across this country. We have already demonstrated this in the Atlantic Region and Western Canada, we are now doing so in Quebec and Ontario, and we intend to continue this policy. Community involvement is the key to success in regional development!


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. During a TV A year-end television program the Prime Minister indicated that all Quebec shipyards had rosy future prospects. In addition, speaking to Radio-Canada's journalist Pierre Nadeau, he stated that Quebec shipyards were going full spin and that there was no reason to push the panic button before 1990 or 1991. Again the Prime Minister misled the people of Quebec and the shipyard workers: the rosy hue turned to a funeral-parlor mauve after two Quebec shipyards-Vickers and Sorel's-died and the only thing going full spin are the 635 lay-offs. Now that the Conservative Government has shut down two Quebec shipyards and laid off 635 workers, can the Prime Minister tell us what he is going to do to support and help these 635 workers and salvage what is left of Quebec's naval tradition, namely the Lauzon shipyards?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely to save jobs that the federal Government and the Quebec Government took the initiative of which you are aware. The restructuring plan was unveiled by the Quebec Government. Under this plan and with a major federal contribution the industry will be in a position to streamline its operations. It will end up with more-not fewer-jobs; three times as many jobs at Lauzon, twice as many jobs at Sorel. That is part of the restructuring plan.


REQUEST FOR WORK
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a recording of the Prime Minister's comments. Enough is enough! I would like to know what the Prime Minister meant when he told Quebec workers that their province's shipyards were operating "full spin". What is the Prime Minister's answer on that? Those people want to know the truth. What will there be for those 635 workers? Mr. Prime Minister, you were saying to Mr. Nadeau, in your deep voice : "Look now, Mr. Nadeau, about those 635 workers, the shipyards are operating full spin". What does that mean, "full
spin"? People in Quebec want to work! Give them work, give them contracts for Quebec shipyards!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member referred to job creation and helping workers, it should perhaps be remembered that since September 1984 in Montreal, 116,000 new jobs have been created over the last three years, as compared to a net loss of
4,000	jobs in Montreal over four years under the Liberals. So there you have it, Mr. Speaker-116,000 new jobs created in Montreal under the Conservative Government over three years, as compared to a net loss of 4,000 jobs under the Liberal administration when the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was sitting in this House of Commons but did not say one word against the Liberal Government that was killing Eastern Montreal's economy.
Mr. Speaker, on that point, of course the Hon. Member knows too well that almost a third of the frigate contract is going to Quebec through a very large, nearly $900 million contract to Paramax. Secondly, perhaps my hon. friend should read the statement made by Minister Daniel Johnson where he said the award by the Canadian Government of the frigate contract to Marine Industries Ltd. shipyards will in no way impair the rigourous restructuring plan developed by that company. The Quebec Government's plan to restructure shipyards was clearly in place and the award of the contract to St. John's, New Brunswick, which was in great need of that help from the Canadian Government, changed nothing to the impact on employment in Montreal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government has announced this morning that it does not recognize as valid the elections in Haiti. They have known for a long time that these elections would not be democratic. Why have they remained silent all that time? Now it is too late!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have not remained silent. We think that it is up to the people administered by a governement to judge the efficiency of that government. The people of Haiti have now decided. There is evidently no support. The people have not voted. There is no support for the elections that were held yesterday. The challenge now for us, for the friends of Haiti, is to find ways to restore the democracy in Haiti and help the people of that country. That is the objective of our government.
January 18, 1988

government position


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it was clear to everyone that these elections held yesterday were bound to be a manipulated tragedy. Is it not possible that had the Canadian Government and other Governments condemned in advance what was going to be inevitably a travesty, the tragedy of yesterday and the actions of now might have been avoided?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to come to that point, since the Hon. Member has raised it, I believe that the eloquent statement made by the electors at Haiti who stayed home was all the more effective because it was clearly a statement that they made themselves.
The challenge for us now is to find ways not just to talk about helping Haiti, but to find practical ways in which this country, France, the United States and neighbours in the Caribbean can come together to encourage democracy in that country as well as to help the impoverished citizens of one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Indeed, it is a country with whom we have had long and important relations.
I misheard part of the statement of the Member for Papineau who made an accusation with regard to the misdirection of aid funds. We have investigated that. There is no basis to that allegation.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On January 8 the federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, found both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the present Minister of Communications, guilty of contempt of court for failing to obey a court order. In other words, two of his Ministers now stand convicted in their personal capacity of a serious offence, characterized as a quasi criminal offence, convicted by a court of law for failing to carry out their duties as Ministers.
What is the Prime Minister's reaction to this conviction of his Ministers, and what is the position of the Government?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice who is away on other government business, I can advise the House that the Minister of Justice today instructed the
Oral Questions
officials in his Ministry to commence proceedings for leave to appeal this particular conviction. As a result, the matter is presently before the courts and, as the Hon. Member well knows, I cannot comment further on a matter that is going to be under appeal.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We are accustomed to the non comments of the Solicitor General on matters involving members of his caucus and the courts.


DECISION TO APPEAL FINDING
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, does the decision of the Government to appeal mean that Ministers are not to be held accountable in court for failures like the one that resulted in this conviction? Is it the Government's position that the Ministers are not responsible for their Departments? I think the Prime Minister himself should be answering a question of this importance.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the Hon. Member appears to be suggesting that my two colleagues should not be able to avail themselves of a right of appeal. Is he suggesting that they do not have that right?
With the greatest respect, I do not think that the Hon. Member should be making suggestions about what has or has not happened or about the results until we have heard the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two more questions-the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, followed by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East. That will close Question Period.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion. The decision to award the CF-18 contract to Canadair instead of Bristol in Winnipeg incensed all Manitobans. The Leader of the New Democratic Party asked the Government, first, for assurances that the decision had been made on the basis of the competitive aspect of both bids. We also asked that the relevant documents be referred to the Auditor General for study and report to the House. I ask the Minister why the Government did not agree at that time to that proposal?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, subject to consulting Hansard, if I recall properly at that point I indicated very clearly that all

January 18, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Shields
relevant documents would be referred to the Auditor General. He reports directly to this House and will have access to all the relevant material. 1 will verify the record to ensure I have made that commitment. Obviously, through the normal process, the information was made public, subject, obviously to the caveat 1 mentioned back then, that some of the confidential commercial information, before its release, had to be cleared by the companies involved.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary, please.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Orlikow: 1 would like to ask the Minister to assure the people of Manitoba that the report in the Winnipeg Free Press several days ago that the universities of Manitoba would not be considered as possible recipients of scientific research centres of excellence because Manitoba has a New Democratic Government is incorrect, and that Manitoba universities will be given a fair opportunity in the competition for these centres of excellence.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to give the strongest assurance that all Canadians, all Canadian provinces, all Canadian universities and all Canadian researchers will be treated equally by this Government.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. On December 13 a convicted murderer-rapist, who was out on full parole after serving only seven-and-a-half years of a life sentence, murdered three innocent people in Chilliwack, a 34-year-old mother, her 12-year-old daughter and her 12-year-old friend.
Why was a convicted deviant sexual offender who had committed a heinous murder and rape in 1971, and who was subsequently convicted of indecent exposure in 1986 while out on parole, again let out on full parole to go and murder three people?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, let me first express my horror to this House and to the families and relatives of the victims over what happened. I can advise the House that this individual was convicted of non capital murder in 1972. After nine years in prison, he was paroled under very strict terms in 1981. In 1986 his parole was revoked for a 21-day period for indecent exposure. Again, after a full hearing by the vice-chairman of the National Parole Board, he was again released in 1986 on very strict terms. He was receiving medical and psychiatric treatment at the time of this tragedy. We were shocked and surprised, as was everyone else.
There is going to be a full inquest conducted by the coroner of British Columbia into this case in either February or March of this year.


Gerry St. Germain: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know there are some Members who would like to pursue this longer, but I am conscious of the time. 1 will, of course, be very generous in recognizing those Members tomorrow.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify something for the House. I saw the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) with a tape recorder on his desk and he was waving it in the air. If the Member was using it in the House and it is against the rules, where do we stand on that issue, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the House. I also noticed the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) with a recorder in his hand. I thought perhaps he wanted an immediate Translation or recording of what was taking place. There has been some indication that perhaps the Hon. Member, in an excess of enthusiasm, wished something on that tape to be put through the recording system of the House. That is an ingenious approach, but, of course, it is out of order. However, 1 listened and found that I could not hear anything except the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who, of course, has never been shy about ensuring that we could hear the question that he put.
The Hon. Member has raised a point in which he is absolutely correct. If an hon. member was doing what may well have been attempted, that would be out of order. I am sure all Hon. Members would refrain from doing it again.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Denis had that tape.
January 18, 1988


John Napier Turner: Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie had that recorder. I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair that at no time was the Hon. Member trying to use a recorder to tape the deliberations. That would be out of order. In any case, the rules are very clear, we cannot do that in committee or in the House even though everything is now made public on television.
What the Hon. Member had in his hand was a tape of a speech that was made. He only wanted to emphasize that he had in his hand the proof of what he was saying.


An Hon. Member:: You are on light ground.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am not on light ground. If I was, Mr. Speaker would have ruled me out of order right away. So that is the explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor on a point of order. The Hon. Member may continue.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will conclude by saying it is an non-issue because the Hon. Member was not trying to be out of order by taping what was going on, even though, as I said and as I will repeat, every deliberation is now on television. However, it is still against the rules to tape in a committee room or in the House, but that is not what the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie was trying to achieve. He just wanted to emphasize by showing that he had in his hand proof of a speech made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) somewhere concerning a certain debate. That was all. I do not think my hon. friend should have even raised that question.


APPOINTMENT TO INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier, Member for the electoral constituency of Ottawa-Vanier, has been appointed member of the Board of Internal Economy to replace the Hon. Andre Ouellet, Member for the electoral constituency of Papineau, for the purposes of and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled an Act to amend the House of Commons Act.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987 [English]


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, During Question Period the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) raised a question with respect to a purported foreign terrorist in Canada. I made an intervention or interjection which inferred that the terrorist was a refugee. I have no idea whether or not that remark was recorded by Hansard. However, I take no comfort in whether it was or was not recorded. I simply want to categorically withdraw the remark as being terribly wrong in casting a reflection upon refugees that was clearly unintended.
I unequivocally withdraw my remark whether or not I have been identified as the person who made that untoward comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) has made an intervention in the best tradition of this House. The Hon. Member has the thanks of other Hon. Members, as was indicated by the applause and by the Chair.
When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) had the floor.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. Mulroney) that Bill-103, an Act to increase economic opportunity in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that there are certain aspects of this legislation which improve upon the previous approach taken. That is to say, under one ministry will be all of the programs for regional development related to Atlantic Canada. I would expect there to be more sensitivity than we have come to expect from the Governments of Canada, whether they be under the current administration or previous Liberal ones, to the two programs as they affect Atlantic Canadians and Atlantic Canadian businesses.

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
In this regard I need only refer to the Atlantic Enterprise Program which was introduced by the present Government.
In February of this year the Government had to respond very quickly to the criticisms which were launched immediately against the program by business people in Atlantic Canada concerning its threshold requirements. Initially, the program provided for loan insurance and interest buy-downs for projects in excess of $250,000. This refers to the program which was announced in the 1986 Budget.
The immediate reaction from Atlantic business people was that that would not apply to very many projects for capital improvement and that it would not provide any major initiative for development of capital projects in the Atlantic region. Within a matter of months the Government was required to announce, through the then Minister of State for Small Businesses, that the thresholds would be lowered from $250,000 to $100,000 and that interest buy-downs would be lowered from $250,000 to $25,000. This was in keeping with the scale of many projects and businesses in the Atlantic region. That is only one small example of what we in the New Democratic Party see as insensitivity by the members of Cabinet and by the Government to the needs of Atlantic Canada and to the importance of regional development to Atlantic Canada.
These difficulties that Atlantic Canadians have in getting a response from the Government of Canada to their needs are not new. They existed under the Tories. They existed prior to that under Liberal administrations. During the first five years of the DREE program under the Liberal administration, from 1969 to 1974, the per capita spending in the Province of Newfoundland was $9 per year. That was the annual average expenditure for the first five year period of the program. In the last five year period the per capita expenditure was down to $7. In the next year, which was a year under the Tory administration, the per capita expenditure for industrial incentive grants was down to $3. So we experienced a decrease, not an increase, in expenditures for this type of program. This was a program which was absolutely necessary, not only in terms of the interests of Atlantic Canada but in terms of the interests of the whole of Canada.
As I indicated before lunch, regional imbalances are the major economic problem of Canada. Since August of this year we have heard in the House statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other Ministers bragging about their performance. Figures released by the OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development show that Canada's economy as a whole has been very good compared to other OECD nations. Our unemployment rate has dropped to a five year low of 9.1 per cent in the past year. However, not all Canadians have shared the sustained growth that Canada has experienced over the last several years. In the industrial heartland of Canada, in southern Ontario and in parts of Quebec, we are back to pre-recession levels. However, in the western provinces and in Atlantic Canada such is not the case.
The underlying message in all of this is that economic growth in Canada, powerful as it may be, will not cure the widening imbalances between regions. We are developing a two-tier system wherein there are two types of Canada's, a Canada for the economic heartlands and one for the fringes of the country, including Atlantic Canada. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for Atlantic Canada. It is not good enough for Canada as a whole.
Not just Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada ought to be concerned about this matter. They are not the only ones from whom we should hear speeches on this subject. Members of Parliament from wealthier ridings, from ridings which have sustained economic growth, ought also to be concerned about the importance of regional development and about correcting regional imbalances.
Mr. John Crow, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, is one of many Canadians who has expressed concerns about regional imbalances. He has said that these regional imbalances could eventually drag down the whole economy. That is but one reason to support regional development. It affects the whole economy of the country. A more important reason to support regional development is that the people of Atlantic Canada deserve to have the same opportunities as do other Canadians in terms of employment. They deserve a share of the wealth of this great country.
The same report that the Prime Minister was so happy to quote in August and September of this year, put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, flagged to all industrialized countries the starkness of regional disparities in Canada's growth rates as a major problem. The agency has been quoted as saying that while such differences are a common feature of the Canadian economic scene, their intensity was unusually pronounced last year. That is an indictment against this country's approach to regional development. It is an indictment against the lack of concern that central Governments, both Tory and Liberal, have had for the regional development of Atlantic Canada. We in the New Democratic Party wish to see that change. We wish to see a national commitment to reducing the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada.
The Minister of Transport stated in the House today that, "We will wait for four or five years and see if it works. We are putting in $200 million a year for five years and we will wait for four or five years and see how it works. The success of this is in the hands of the board that we have appointed". Atlantic Canadians, it is all your problem now. We are turning it over to you. We have taken away $1 billion per year, we are giving you back $200 million. In four or five years we will come and see how it has worked.
Instead of that, there ought to be a five-year commitment from the Government, or from any Government of Canada, to reduce the disparity between Atlantic Canada and the national
January 18, 1988

economy by 20 per cent per year. That is the type of commitment we expect from a Government that is serious about reducing regional inequities in this country. Let us put into the legislation that that is the goal and the objective of the agency, and that the Government is committed to making moneys available on an annual basis to achieve those results. Have the agency make an annual report to Parliament on the progress that it has made. That would be a real commitment to the reduction of regional disparities. All Canadians would then know, without even thinking about it, that if the unemployment rate in Ontario was the same as it was in Newfoundland, that would require a national project and would be a matter of national concern. It is a matter of national concern now because it is Newfoundland, just as much as it would be if it were Ontario, Quebec, or any other province.
Atlantic Canadians deserve better from this country. They deserve a commitment from the Government of this country to reduce the regional disparities. We want targets in the legislation, and we want input on that board from sectors of the economy in Atlantic Canada other than the private sector. We need to have input from the co-operative sector. We need stronger commitment from labour, an involvement by regional development corporations and associations, and a stronger input from the voluntary sector and organized labour. These commitments are needed if this Government is to be seen as taking seriously any commitment to regional development.
There is a concern that there is a lack of political will to do what needs to be done about regional development. That is the cases. It is exists in this Government. I quoted what was stated by the former Minister of Public Works, a Minister from the Atlantic region, who stated that "this is the last kick at the can". The five year commitment of $200 million a year for all of Atlantic Canada is the last kick at the can. This is all we can do. After that there ain't no more. If that is all that this Government can do for the next five years for Atlantic Canada, it does not deserve to be the Government of this country, and Atlantic Canadians will not support it.
Prior to the Government's involvement in 1984, the Liberal Government had a chance for 15 years, with the exception of the brief interregnum of the Government of the Right Hon. Mr. Clark. During that 15 year period the commitment to regional development decreased; it did not increase. In fact, the former Liberal Party regional development critic, a Member from Nova Scotia, admitted that his Party lost the political will to stimulate economic growth in the last years of former Prime Minister Trudeau's Government. That is an admission that the political will and the commitment was lost.
Indeed, when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Prime Minister, one of his first acts was to remove any Minister responsible for regional development. At that time, for the first time in 20 years, there was no one at the Cabinet table who was responsible for regional development. There was not one person whose responsibility was to see that regional development was to take place in this country. That was the extent of the loss of political will of the former Liberal
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
administration which existed up until September, 1984. That was when it ended. Since 1984 this Government has shown how badly it treats regional development as an issue.
A very poignant way of expressing the concern of this Government's approach to regional development was expressed in The Ottawa Citizen in May, 1987. The article states:
The Conservative government's approach to regional development seems to
have one potentially fatal flaw: As in Charles Darwin's theory on survival of
the fittest, some parts of the country may never flourish.
That is what has happened with the Government. It has one approach, and that is, if you are fit you survive, and otherwise you die. By taking money away from regional development in Atlantic Canada it is hanging Atlantic Canada out to dry, and all Atlantic Canadians will be the losers.
The people of Canada will rely on the New Democratic Party to make a commitment to a national effort on regional development; a commitment to attempt seriously in a targeted, programmed way to reduce economic disparities in this country, in a reasoned, carefully planned staged manner over a short period of time, and make the commitment to provide the funds to make that possible.
This can be done by way of the tax system. We know that the tax system as it presently exists favours the large corporations over the small. The economic reality of Canadian corporate structure is that the larger you are the less taxes you pay as a percentage of your earned income. Obviously that favours survival of the fittest. The fittest are those who will have more money to spend and co-operate with the Government to become larger at the expense of smaller enterprises. These smaller enterprises exist in the regions of this country.
Over the last 25 years we have seen a decrease in spending in the Atlantic region for regional development. In the late 1960s when DREE was first started, one-half of its budget went to Atlantic Canada. In the last year of the Liberal's power this had fallen to 22 per cent. In 1983-84 the Liberals spent $30 million less in the Atlantic region than in 1975-76. The people of Atlantic Canada cannot look to the Liberals for an answer. They cannot look to the Government for an answer. They will have to look elsewhere, to the New Democratic Party for a commitment on regional development.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard from several Members of Parliament from the Atlantic provinces on this very important measure. Like the previous speaker, they made some excellent points that are worthy of consideration. This also is an example of the high calibre of debate that we receive in this House from Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada.
Since the establishment of DREE in 1969, substantial attention has been devoted to the problem of regional disparity as it manifests itself in the Atlantic region. In fact, the experiences of the federal Government in trying to meet the special needs of this region predate DREE. There were a wide variety of initiatives undertaken beginning in the late 1950s.

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
There have been a multitude of broad strategies and individual initiatives. One survey identifies nine major and significant policy shifts since 1963. In addition, there have been major studies of the successes and failures undertaken by Governments and by independent agencies and scholars. The late DREE published regional and provincial reports; a select committee of the Senate produced a very insightful document; the Macdonald Royal Commission, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and the Cape Breton Advisory Committee have all reported recently.
Given the time which has now elapsed since the first attempts to address the problem, and given the amount of information and analysis now available, it should be possible to arrive at coherent and effective new policies. It is now urgent that this be done.
Governments, and particularly the federal Government, now have a severely diminished capacity to redistribute wealth because of their deficits and their strained sources of revenue. We appear to have reached the point where corporations feel able to demand that provincial Governments compete with each other in offering extravagant concessions in order to obtain development. What all the reports tell us basically is that regional development policies have failed utterly to lessen disparities between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of the country. It is possible to argue, hypothetically, that in the absence of those policies the disparities would be even greater, but that thought provides very little comfort. The statistical demonstrations of this failure are legion.
We know that social policies and equalization payments have raised disposable incomes closer to the national average and allowed the Maritime provinces to sustain levels of health and educational services which would otherwise be impossible. These, in turn, generate local economic activity. Compensatory policies not only signal a commitment to the right of all individuals to basic standards of living and of services in all parts of the country, but they also signal a rejection of the idea of leaving the Atlantic region to the mercy of market forces, which could well have the effect of emptying it entirely. Direct government activity, such as military installations, also contributes to the standard of living. This is to the good, and so is decentralized administration and procurement in the region. It is one thing to raise disposable incomes, however, and another to increase the production of wealth and thus to lessen the dependency of the Atlantic region.
Efforts to stimulate economic development and diversification have not led to increases in earned incomes relative to the rest of the country, or lessened dependence on public sector spending in general, and federal spending and transfers in particular. Federal transfers to Governments and individuals in Atlantic Canada exceed revenues by $7 or $8 billion a year and account for 75 per cent of gross provincial product. That is a tragedy. This is true despite the achievement of specific
objectives related to the creation of economic infrastructure and the stimulation of designated growth centres.
It is alarming to note that the low pay-off received from economic incentives has been consistent across several administrative approaches and changes in the nature of the incentives offered. There are some positive lessons to be gleaned. One is that projects do not outlast the incentives if they never made economic sense in the first place. They do not change the reality which discouraged investment in the first place, and they turn out to be a terribly expensive and demoralizing form of make-work project. The best DREE investments, by contrast, were in the expansion or modernization of existing viable enterprises, usually small to middle-sized and locally owned or controlled. It would be tempting in a time of fiscal restraint, but simplistic, for the federal Government to say that grants, tax incentives et cetera have not worked and thus should be abandoned. It would be simplistic because there is no evidence that these policies themselves are the problem or are unnecessary to generate economic growth. The truth is that traditional policy supports are almost certainly necessary, but apparently have not been sufficient to turn the Atlantic economy around. We must, therefore, recognize the fundamental problems which incentives and subsidies did not fully address.
Atlantic Canadians have to contend with a small market for their products. Although particular interest groups may see themselves threatened by prospects of freer trade with the United States, regional representatives should in general welcome the possibility of new economic opportunities in an expanded market. They and the Government of Canada must quickly identify the possible advantages and plan to seize them.
It has often been observed that some of the traditional disadvantages of Maritime industry, notably geographic ones, should not discourage the development of high technology industries, not to mention industries for which the region may in fact be uniquely suited. For example, several marine-related industries have been mooted in recent years. We should, therefore, be asking why outside capital is not attracted to genuine economic opportunities, especially when they are sweetened by incentives. It should equally be asked why these opportunities are often ignored even by indigenous entrepreneurs. If we knew why the Atlantic provinces were not considered attractive places to invest and why corporations hesitate to transfer highly skilled people there, we might understand why infrastructure and special incentives have not been sufficient to attract and hold industrial activity outside of natural resource exploitation. This is a roundabout way of posing a highly delicate question. Do the Atlantic provinces have characteristics which positively discourage or prevent investment? Do they produce enough skillful and ambitious entrepreneurs and managers, develop enough scientific and technological expertise, train a sufficiently qualified and
January 18, 1988

disciplined workforce to be taken seriously by outside investors? Do we drive out the best and brightest of those we do manage to produce?
The subjects of education, manpower training, research, entrepreneurship and investment incentives are related and fundamental to a realistic analysis of economic disparity.
We must acknowledge the problem and begin to consider fundamental changes or no amount of compensatory spending and short-term incentives will alleviate the chronic dependency of Atlantic Canadians. Our ability to match brains with the rest of the industrialized world will ultimately determine whether we can achieve the goals of social justice and humanity which all of us want.
At the present time the economy of the Atlantic provinces appears to be going through a crisis of confidence. This crisis is both economic and psychological. It is thus imperative that the Government of Canada undertake a new initiative to expand and diversify the economic base of the Atlantic region. This new initiative by the federal Government must be strong and determined and, by its nature, must be seen to be strong and determined. It, too, must have its economic and psychological effects but they must be growth promoting and confidence building.
Since the creation of the Atlantic Development Board in 1962, substantial amounts have been spent by the Government of Canada to encourage economic development in the Atlantic provinces. Very little of this money, however, has gone to the private sector to encourage directly the expansion of employment in manufacturing. Most federal funds have gone to provincial Governments to expand the infrastructure or the social overhead capital of the region.
Any survey of federal spending for regional economic development in the Atlantic provinces over the last two decades will reveal that direct incentives to industry have been relatively small, indeed so small as to be most unlikely to have any significant impact on the process of economic development. The fact is that there has never been a determined and realistic effort by the Government of Canada to expand and diversify the industrial base of New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces. Industrial incentives in aggregate have been relatively weak, weak in relation to those available in central Canada and perhaps, more important, the will in Ottawa to promote industrial change in Atlantic Canada has been extremely weak.
Citizens of New Brunswick and other Atlantic provinces contrast the enormous efforts and expenditures made by the federal Government to expand the automobile and aircraft industries of central Canada with the puny and perfunctory efforts at industrial development east of the Quebec-New Brunswick border.
Industrial development can only succeed if there are strong incentives for industry and there is the will in Ottawa to assist in using these incentives to promote economic change.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
Regional industrial development must also become an important and pervasive objective of all the key economic Departments of the federal Government and must be coordinated to maximize its impact. In the past, industrial development in the Atlantic region has only been of peripheral interest.
What is the Government's response? The Government's response is before us today in the Bill to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, has been designed by the Government of Canada to ensure the creation of a more favourable environment for sustained regional economic growth within which the people of Atlantic Canada will share increasingly the opportunities for employment and earned income available to other Canadians. The agency's prime objective is to reduce economic disparity between Atlantic Canada and the remainder of Canada through action, co-ordination and advocacy. ACOA is responsible for federal business and industrial development programs in the region with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized operations.
Its principal function is to design and deliver such programs, working closely with provincial Government and the private sector, and not as a substitute for the activities of other federal Departments. It has a particular responsibility to foster new enterprises at the local level. It has a strong co-ordinating mandate over all the region, particularly in job creation, training and skills development, local investment promotion, technology infrastructure development and procurement.
One of ACOA's objectives will be to build up the research capability of universities and other post-secondary institutions in Atlantic Canada and to ensure that regional enterprise is fostered. It is responsible for bringing a regional perspective to bear on the design of national economic and social programs that affect Atlantic Canada.
The agency, with its particular emphasis on business development aspects of regional development, seeks to stimulate the entrepreneurial environment of the region to improve the competitiveness regionally, nationally and internationally with small and medium-sized Atlantic businesses and to encourage adjustment generally to changing local and broader economic and market circumstances. The agency, guided by the advice of its board, seeks innovative ways in which to maximize the use of new and existing resources.
The board's views on the design and execution of flexible new programs and on the adequacy and possible modification of existing programs are being sought. In particular, the board advises the agency on ways in which the agency can work competitively with its clientele in programs to enhance economic and industrial growth, on strategies for ensuring Atlantic interests are addressed in the treatment of national issues, on methods for planning and co-ordinating economic

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
development activities in Atlantic Canada, on possibilities for stimulating productivity improvements and technological innovation in the region, and on needs for improved information, program-delivery systems and analysis of barriers to Atlantic entrepreneurial activity.
The legislation will give the Atlantic-based agency the legal powers and clout needed to implement an innovative economic agenda aimed primarily at small and medium-sized entrepreneurs and based on the vision and creativity of the people of the region. The Bill before us gives far reaching authority to the agency including direct influence on the programs of other federal Departments inasmuch as these affect the economic climate in Atlantic Canada.
Not only are the organizational and administrative characteristics of the Government's new policy in establishing the agency unique, but what sets ACOA apart is also the flexibility of its approach to promoting and supporting entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada. Greater employment and higher earned incomes are dependent upon assisting entrepreneurs to realize their objectives without the impediments of regional disparity. The agency will have unprecedented authority of its own to assist small and medium-sized businesses, the types of businesses that create the most jobs.
This legislation gives the people of Atlantic Canada their first real chance to design economic policies which affect them directly. Following the Prime Minister's June 1987 challenge to Atlantic Canadians to become architects of their own economic destiny, numerous business and community leaders have been participating in an ongoing consultation with the agency regarding what needs to be done in Atlantic Canada. This dialogue will add well-thought-out program substance to the legislative structure before us today. It will also help devise effective guidelines to gain maximum benefit from the $1.5 billion of new money set aside by the Government for new ACOA programs.
The new legislation will allow the ACOA Minister and the agency to have a great deal of flexibility regarding decisionmaking in the region. It will allow co-financing of regionally advantageous projects with other Departments and the establishment of designated areas of exceptional opportunities. It will harness federal programs to the common goal of increasing opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada.
This is a Bill for the future. It is a Bill which gives Atlantic Canadians direction over their economic future. It is a Bill which places decision-making in the region where it belongs. It is a Bill which gives small and medium-sized enterprises the tools they need to encourage economic growth and stability in the region. It is a Bill which adapts regional development programs to regional needs, not regions to the strictures of development programs. It is a Bill which will help create the environment needed for economic growth. It is a Bill which has the flexibility needed to encourage real growth and prosperity in the region.
I urge all Hon. Members to read this Bill carefully because I know that if they do, they will agree that this is a Bill for a future of growth and prosperity for Atlantic Canada. I will conclude by asking Hon. Members to act quickly on this Bill for the sake of the future of Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate today.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, since this Government took office in September of 1984, $1.5 billion per year has been removed from support for the Atlantic region. Under the provisions of this Bill and with the funding we understand will be available, the Atlantic region will get $200 million per year in each of the next five years. This will mean that even when this Bill is passed and the funding is allocated, the Atlantic regions will still receive substantially less in federal government assistance to develop the Atlantic region than it was receiving when the former Liberal Government was in power. I would ask the Hon. Member how he can square the brave words we have just heard him utter with the reality of what the Conservative Government has done.
Second, how can the Hon. Member and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) argue that the free trade deal will give the Atlantic region the ability to get involved in procurement in the United States when he knows and the Prime Minister should know that the determined needs of the American Government and large American corporations are very large? Even if Canadian companies can get into the market, something that is doubtful, the contracts would go to companies in Ontario and Quebec, companies which are much larger and could therefore bid much more successfully for those supposed American contracts.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his very in-depth and well researched question. I think he has posed two very vital and important questions. The Hon. Member spoke of reality, so I would like to give him some.
The Atlantic agency has been given responsibility for all regional development programs relating to the Atlantic region including the following: the Atlantic Enterprise Program, the Industrial Regional Development Program, Enterprise Cape Breton and the economic regional development agreements. Along with these programs came the money to administer the programs.
The present level of expenditures under these programs amounts to approximately $196 million. That is a considerable increase over the regional development expenditures in Atlantic Canada by the last Liberal Government. Average expenditures under IRDAs and GDAs by the Liberal Government in the last three years of its mandate, 1981 to 1984, amounted to $146 million. Average expenditures under IRDAs and GDAs by this Conservative Government in the last three years amounted to $198.5 million. That is an increase in expenditures of over 35 per cent.
January 18, 1988

The Prime Minister and all Atlantic Ministers were not satisfied with this increase in expenditures and have therefore committed to the Atlantic provinces an additional $1.05 billion over the next five years, an additional $200 million yearly for five years.
The Hon. Member asked a question relating to freer trade. I am very glad to hear a realistic interest in that subject now being undertaken by his colleagues.
Living in New Brunswick and reading American newspapers, I have observed that in the New England states, there is a very low unemployment rate. There are large advertisements appearing in The Bangor Daily News every day asking for employees. There are not enough people to fill the jobs.
We can learn a lesson by getting into that market. We can build on the excellent universities which exist in the area. We can use the New England states, our natural trading partners along the Atlantic seaboard, as a market for our goods to enable us to expand. One mill owner has indicated that he will be expanding to the tune of 200 more employees which, while not much to people from central Canada, means an awful lot to us in Atlantic Canada.
In addition, what do the Americans want from the maritime provinces? 1 think they would like access to our two deepwater ports, Halifax and Saint John. If the Hon. Member examines the configuration of the Atlantic shelf as it extends out on the seaboard, he will find it is relatively shallow, with two big exceptions. Halifax and Saint John stick out into the Atlantic like two hungry jaws facing the Persian Gulf, from whence come the largest ships in the world. One of the things we can sell the Americans is a transportation facility extended all along the Atlantic seaboard.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for those searching questions and for giving me an opportunity to address important subjects.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I caught the reference by the Hon. Member to the development of the universities of New Brunswick, institutions in which I have a special interest because of my family background in that province. I know of the traditionally great love for learning among the people of New Brunswick, and one of the things I have been waiting to hear about in the debate today is the extent to which the educational institutions and programs available to the people of New Brunswick will benefit from this new Atlantic development program.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, as some Hon. Members may know, this is a subject that I consider very important. It was the subject of a Private Members' Motion which all Members of this House approved of and passed. That Bill is now before the Standing Committee on Secretary of State for extensive study.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
One of the lessons we learned from the New England states and their development is the necessity to build on the expertise in our universities. That is what they have done, and the spinoff benefits in new industry and research and development have been simply tremendous.
We in New Brunswick have developed a centre of excellence in the form of a forestry complex which has received assistance from all the Atlantic provinces, the federal Government, as well as other provincial Governments. It is developing new techniques and opening a window on research in the vital forest industry. It has blazed a path which I would like to see ACOA follow. I know that in that agency's mandate there is a directive to address that subject, and I am very pleased with that.
One of the things we might do, for example, is to look at the business administration school at the University of New Brunswick and work with it to develop an international marketing concept that could help the private sector in the Atlantic provinces to expand and to develop new markets and new opportunities for growth.
Another thing we can do in concert with our universities is to develop an innovation testing centre, a science mall, which will test new inventions and disseminate knowledge about them to people in the area so we can create more jobs.
Another area we can work together on in the field of education is training. That is a direct responsibility of ACOA. We could work with our universities in developing education, training new entrepreneurs and our workforce in order to help make Atlantic Canada a Mecca for entrepreneurs and highly-skilled people in order to take advantage of freer trade and the other opportunities which exist in our country.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on putting a very succinct case for the Bill before the House today. There is probably no one in this House, and certainly no one in Atlantic Canada, who is more familiar with the details of regional development and regional disparities than the Hon. Member. I am sure that had he an opportunity, he would have dealt with the provisions of the Bill dealing with financing and co-financing and the co-operative programs, which can be implemented once the Bill is passed. These provisions have one purpose and that is the economic growth of the region.
I would ask the Hon. Member what he would suggest is the single most important difference between the ACOA and previous approaches to the problems of regional development in Atlantic Canada.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. There are some significant differences. The depth of the measures open to the new agency is more extensive than under DRIE, DREE, or other programs of the past. I think that decisions being made in the area, after extensive consultations, is a factor, but if I have to name one single thing, and that is what he asked me to do, I would say that the ability of

January 18, 1988
Adjournment Motion
the agency to focus the resources of all Departments of Government and all agencies as well as its own funding component on the problems in the area is probably the largest and most outstanding difference compared to the former situation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question with respect to federal government procurement. That is one way in which we can look for economic diversification in the Atlantic region. Industries in the region can develop provided they are assured of the ability to bid on federal government contracts through the Department of Supply and Services. The free trade agreement with the U.S. would preclude an area like the Atlantic region from any such preferential treatment. Therefore, I would like the Hon. Member to stand and explain what appears to be a situation where the Atlantic provinces would not be able to take advantage of any federal government procurement programs.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question, and I will be glad to, in his words, stand and explain how the procurement program works.
There exists in the Department of Supply and Services a program where the Department attempts to procure goods and services for use in the Atlantic provinces from people in the Atlantic provinces. At this point we are not filling the need. We are procuring goods for use in the Atlantic provinces from outside the region. This program, which is designed to address this fault and remedy it, is now in place, working, but it needs an awful lot more fine tuning.
There are a lot more things that can be produced in Atlantic Canada if we give them a market. Federal procurement is one way of giving them that market. That is the reason the program is in place and operating. By combining that program with others under ACOA we could advance the region a great deal. I would like to thank the Hon. Member very much for his suggestion.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I will make my question brief. I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware of the report of the federal-provincial task force on regional development laid before the First Ministers' Conference in Toronto in November which concludes that the resources applied specifically to regional development over the past 25 years have been small in relative terms. It says expenditures in Atlantic Canada were in the order of 3 per cent of total federal expenditures and are now less than that. It says that greater expenditures could well have had significantly greater results.
In view of that fact, and the reduction in regional development expenditures over the last three years under the current Government of $1 billion a year, replacing it with $200 million a year, could the Hon. Member tell the House whether or not he is satisfied with the level of expenditure on regional development programs in this country?


J. Robert Howie: I can answer that very simply and say no, I am not satisfied with the level of expenditures on regional development. I will not be satisfied until those of us in Atlantic Canada are at a par with the rest of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is not satisfied either. That is why we have this Bill before the House, which I am sure the Hon. Member, being from Atlantic Canada, will want to support.
I also want to indicate to him, as I did to his colleague, that expenditures for regional development in Atlantic Canada have increased by 35 per cent since this Government took office. That is a comparison of the last three years of the last administration and the first and only three years of this administration. I would like to refer the Member to the comparison of annual federal and DREE budgets from 197172 to 1983-84 when the Government took over. We did extremely well in the first year in terms of federal budget. We had 1.8 per cent of the spending power. In the last year we were down to 0.6 per cent. Therefore, the Hon. Member can rest assured that we have nowhere to go but up, and we did go up in the first three years we were in Government. The figures I have given are the expenditures, not the budgets. I compared the expenditures in the initial figures I gave to him and his colleague.
I want to thank the Member for his question. No one has a monopoly on the desire to see the disparities erased in Atlantic Canada, no political Party and no individual. All Parties have a very real interest in seeing this project work. We now need constructive suggestions and an awful lot of work. We must all get behind it. Someone said earlier that this was perhaps our last opportunity. I do not know whether it is or not, but it is a great opportunity of which we have to take advantage.



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 York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Administration of Justice-Inquiry why Government opposed appeal of Luc Paquette to have criminal proceedings trial conducted in French / Right to hold trial proceedings in French in Alberta-Position of Prime Minister; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-Labour relations-Air Canada strike-Suggested suspension of work stoppage; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)- Regional economic development-Montreal East-Loss of jobs at Canadian Vickers / Request for particulars.
January 18, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the last statement made by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). He said that no one has a monopoly on compassion for the Atlantic area or on a wish to see the Atlantic area develop and advance, i think that is right. Governments of all stripes have been stymied over the years and the decades in trying to come up with something that will work.
In spite of all efforts by Governments over the years we are still behind in per capita income and the disparities still exist. What we have done until now certainly has not worked very well. I hope that this initiative works. 1 doubt very much that it is the last initiative. My own people in Newfoundland have been around for 400 years and I doubt very much that we will pack it in tomorrow. Whether or not this is the last gasp or the last kick at the can, 1 do hope it works.
However, I have very serious reservations and some questions that I want to raise about this particular deal. 1 do not want to get into a debate with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) on who has the best record in the Atlantic provinces. He tried to make the case this morning that what the Liberals did was all bad and inconsequential and that what the Tories have done since 1984 has been excellent and outstanding. I would let the people decide that. The fact that we returned three Liberal Members out of seven in the Province of Newfoundland during the Tory sweep is indicative that the people know what has been done for them and who has been doing it. I think our record stands up in retrospect.
However, I do not think that kind of debate gets us anywhere. We should be asking questions about this particular deal. First, with respect to the $1 billion, the Government is very good at moving money around. It is the old shell game. They take the money away and then give it back and announce that they are giving new money. They did the same thing with R and D last week. In his economic statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) reduced incentives for research and development, particularly for technological firms, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that the Government was going to give $1.3 billion to research and development in Canada. They take it away one year and give it back the next; it is the old shell game.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
We have not yet seen any new money out of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The money which has been coming through is from the old DRIE program. We will wait and see whether any new money comes through.
The Minister of Transport said this morning that they were looking for ideas. That is a silly proposition to put forward. There is no shortage of ideas in the Atlantic provinces as to what needs to be done. If he looks on his desk he will see a pile of proposals from the Province of Newfoundland alone on what economic initiatives can be funded. To say that we are doing this because we want ideas from the Atlantic provinces is an absolutely silly proposition.
The Minister of Transport then said that Atlantic Canadians will have to depend on themselves to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Well, we must give them the wherewithal, the context, and the proper incentives if we expect them to do that.
The main problem I have is that there is no commitment here to infrastructure. The Member for York-Sunbury talked about initiatives which he thought should be taken. He referred to two deep water ports. There is no provision under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, in so far as I can see, to deal with such things as deep water ports. Indeed, there is no mandate for them to deal with infrastructure at all. It says that they will continue to administer the existing ERDA agreements, but there is certainly no commitment to money.
As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport made it very clear when he spoke on first reading that this initiative was for business purposes. That is my main criticism of the initiative before us. It is all very well to talk about encouraging business opportunities in Atlantic Canada, but Atlantic Canada is weak in infrastructure. Until such time as you close the gap between the level of infrastructure in the Atlantic region and the level in the rest of Canada there will not be a level playing field and equal opportunity.
You can talk all you like about offering a man money to set up a new fish plant or to apply technology to his fish plant, but if he does not have a paved road over which he can truck fish to market in good quality what is the point of setting up that plant? The same applies if he does not have three-phase power or water and sewer in the community. These are matters which should be addressed but are not addressed in the measure presently before us. There is no provision here at all for infrastructure.
If there is a difference between the policies followed by the Liberal Party when in government and the policies followed by the present Government, this is the fundamental difference. We tried to respond to needs in terms of infrastructure. The Minister of Transport will know that we built roads. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) referred to the road up the northern peninsula this morning. That is one of the roads that was built under previous DREE agreements. The other road which was started was that from Plum Point in his riding to Englee and Roddickton in my riding, but it has not been finished. The

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
road from Main Brook to the new St. Anthony airport has not been finished either, and nor has the trans-Labrador Highway.
There is an agreement for the TransCanada Highway and something like $10 million a year for the construction of the trans-Labrador Highway, but there is no new highways agreement in Newfoundland for secondary roads. We have had such an agreement before and are lacking that now. There is no provision in the legislation presently before us for carrying on with that kind of work.
1 submit that that kind of work is very important. We have to build those roads and water and sewer systems. We have to put in place the necessary infrastructure, particularly in small rural communities, if there is going to be equal opportunity for people to compete in the future. Indeed, I think we should turn the clock right back to the beginning and take a good look at the Atlantic Development Board, the original vehicle to address regional disparity.
In the report which Mr. Savoie made to the Government he recommended the same sort of things. I want to read from a story in Atlantic Insight in which they talk about a return to grass roots. They quote Mr. Savoie who was raised in Kent County in New Brunswick.
He says that a return to a more grass-roots, self-sustaining approach would be the better alternative. The article goes on:
Savoie used the old Atlantic Development Board (ADB) as a model for his new federal agency. Created in the early 1960's-
-created by a Conservative Government:
-the ADB was given six years to spend $150 million to improve the infrastructure of the region. During this period the area's highways were paved, hydro plants were built and much needed information on the Atlantic economy was collected-
The article goes on to say:
The board's last president, Ian MacKeigan, the 72-year-old former Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, remains convinced that the ADB, with its local board of directors and less ambitious mandate, was a very better approach to regional development-
I suggest that this is true. All over Atlantic Canada one can see evidence of projects that were put in place by the Atlantic Development Board and which cannot be put in place by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It just cannot be done because it does not have the mandate and has no money to do it.
If we are going to make changes, I suggest we go back to the beginning and model the agencies on the Atlantic Development Board, to give it the flexibility and the money to invest not simply in business ventures but in infrastructure as well.
The Minister of Transport also said this morning that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be an advocate here in Ottawa. That suggests one of two things: Either there is no advocate, or the one that exists is not satisfactory.
I resent that as a Member of Parliament. As a matter of fact, one could probaby make the case that this infringes on the rights of Members of Parliament. We are elected as advocates. People vote for Members of Parliament to come here and be their advocate, yet the Government is telling us that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be an advocate. 1 resent that. Either the advocates are not there on the other side of the House or they are not doing their job. 1 think it is silly to talk about an agency being an advocate for an area.
There will be no benefit from being an advocate with other Departments because this legislation gives no guarantee that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will have any clout over other federal government Departments. It must be able to influence other Departments, particularly the Department of Transport and the Department of Finance. There is no indication that it will have any influence over those main line agencies.
While we need many new agreements, the one about which I feel most strongly is the renewal of the Labrador sub agreement. We were able to establish under that agreement much needed fisheries infrastructure on the Labrador Coast. We were able to build roads, put in water and sewer systems and were able to build nursing stations. That agreement has expired and there is no money to carry on that work. I would like to see that agreement renewed, but there is no provision for it in this legislation.
The whole issue of free trade has been mentioned. I think it is important to mention free trade in this context as well. I have seen no evidence that the Atlantic provinces will have any great advantage from free trade. As a matter of fact, no economist or other authority has shown me that there will be an advantage for the Atlantic provinces under free trade. I believe present disparities will be entrenched with the free trade agreement. If that is so, 1 think it is important that special provisions be made for the Atlantic area that would give us the necessary advantage.
The main problem I see with the free trade agreement is the provisions for energy. One of the fundamental economic measures one must take in Newfoundland in order to advance economically is the development of the hydro potential. In Labrador there is something like 10,000 megawatts of electricity. Yet that water is flowing to the sea every day untapped.
When the Premier of Newfoundland gave his support to the free trade deal, he evidently had some sort of commitment from the Prime Minister that he would get involved with the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Quebec in advancing hydro development in Labrador. Yet Premier Bourassa announced recently a long-term, $1 billion agreement with the United States for the next 15 years with no new sources of energy, no development of the Lower Churchill. I do not know what commitment was given to the Premier of Newfoundland by the Prime Minister but there is no evidence
January 18, 1988

that any work is going ahead to advance the development of that hydro potential.
It will be even more difficult because of two requirements under the free trade agreement. One is the requirement to sign a long-term agreement with the Americans, assuring them of a continuing supply of energy over a long term period. The second requirement, which is even worse, is that we must guarantee the Americans no differentiation in price. In other words, we must sell to the Americans at the same price as we sell in Canada. Until now we had the flexibility of offering a made-in-Canada price to industrialists and entrepreneurs who want to set up in this country. That will no longer be possible.
I suggest that the free trade agreement itself, in this particular aspect, limits industrial and economic development in the future.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also vaguely refers to training and development. It states that one of the mandates was procurement, training and skills development, job creation, technology, infrastructure development.
I hope the record of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be better in training and skills development than the record of the Government of Canada thus far. The record of the Government thus far has been to cut back on moneys available to young people for training and job creation. For example, there was the announcement during the Christmas recess that Challenge 88 will be kept at the same level it has been for the past two years. On the one hand, the Government talks about training and skills development yet, on the other, cuts back on existing funds. It has cut back on Established Programs Financing. The Minister of Finance announced that instead of proceeding with a 7 per cent increase over the next five years, he would only proceed with a 5 per cent increase, which means that the Province of Newfoundland will lose $181 milllion over the next five years for post-secondary education.
That is the record of the Government, yet we are told that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will become involved in training and skills development. There is no more important area with which it can become involved. It should begin with the problem of illiteracy, which is the greatest sore on the body politic. When we consider the level of illiteracy in this country, it begins with a rate of some 17 per cent in British Columbia, 20 per cent in Central Canada, and reaches a figure of 42 per cent in Newfoundland. While the program should begin by dealing with illiteracy, the reaction of the Government has been to throw $1 million nationally at the problem. Such an amount is peanuts, and virtually an insult.
How can we believe the Government is serious when it cuts back on Challenge 88, on Established Programs Financing and gives token lip service to a problem like illiteracy? While 1 hope the Government will take some brave initiatives for training and skills development, that has certainly not been its record so far.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
I hope this policy succeeds because what Parties on both sides of the House have done so far has not been as effective as it should have been. Otherwise the disparities would be erased and the gap closed. I hope this works, but I have very serious doubts as does everyone else. A survey of the Atlantic provinces Chamber of Commerce conducted in October found that only 18 per cent of the Atlantic provinces Chamber of Commerce membership believed that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency had any chance of dealing with regional disparity. More than 25 per cent said the chances were poor and 48 per cent said the prospects for success were only fair. There is not a great deal of enthusiasm for this particular measure. In spite of that, I do hope it works.
I doubt very much, given the present mandate, the present policy and the present allotment of dollars, that we are going to see a brave new world in the Atlantic in the very near future.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) a question but before 1 do so I would like to preface it with a few remarks.
The Hon. Member, seems to believe, at least from the context of his speech, that the infrastructure, which previous Liberal administrations had tried unsuccessfully for a good number of years to put in place is the key to the success of regional development in Atlantic Canada. I would remind the Hon. Member that Atlantic Canada has first-class engineering firms. Its 13 universities and technical colleges have highly qualified researchers working in well-equipped facilities. There are high-tech firms, enterprises dealing in all the products of the new industrial revolution throughout the entire region. There are service industries and manufacturing firms the equal of none. These engineers, researchers, industrialists, manufacturers and businessmen are competitive. They are deserving and anxious for government contracts and export opportunities. These firms are the equal of none. They excel in every way. I would also remind the Hon. Member that one of the jobs of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is to ensure that federal Government decision-makers know that these enterprises exist and what they do and that national policies and programs reflect an awareness of these facts.
I would suggest that previous administrations have been deficient in doing so. The agency will also keep on top of what other federal Departments and agencies do and plan to do in order to ensure that those plans, if they have a bearing on Atlantic Canada, meet the aims of the agency. It will not take too long for other Departments to become aware that there is an advocate for Atlantic Canada, contrary to the remarks of the Hon. Member. That advocate is the federal Government, this federal Government. It will not be long before federal activity in Atlantic Canada is more unified and joint action by Departments and agencies commonplace.

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
A unique feature of this Bill reinforces the Minister's coordination activities. That is Clause 9. That part of the Bill states that when the Minister is satisfied that the implementation of a program or project authorized by any other Act would further the purpose of the agency, the Minister may conditionally or unconditionally undertake to transfer funds appropriated for the purpose of ACOA to supplement funds that the Minister responsible for the program or project has undertaken to expend. This unique co-financing provision means that the Minister for ACOA can transfer ACOA funds to another federal project or program if that will help ACOA meet its objectives.
That means that ACOA will not have to develop its own programs where there may be programs administered by another Department that will be doing the same job. It means that if there is a progam that would help ACOA foster economic growth in the region, but the program cannot be extended or fully used in Atlantic Canada because of a funding problem, ACOA can then add funds so the program can benefit Atlantic Canada.
The co-ordination and co-financing inherent in the Bill gives the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the flexibility it must have to pursue its purpose of economic growth in the region.
The Hon. Member has suggested that infrastructure is the way. How does the Hon. Member square that with the fact that he was a member of the Cabinet of the Government during the period of time when infrastructure was being touted as the way for restructuring, refinancing, and making Atlantic Canada independent of the regional disparity that we see there today? That was the old Liberal approach. How does the Hon. Member square his speech of today with the fact that those programs obviously did not work? As my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) pointed out, $200 billion later we see that those programs have not worked. The Hon. Member stands and says he hopes this new program of this Government will work. He said that on at least three different occasions. Does this mean-after he tells us how his speech squares with the old approach-that he will indeed support the program, that it is worthy of his support and worthy of the support of all Members of this House?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the approach did work. If that approach had not been in effect we would be a lot worse off than we are today. We at least held people in place. The gap has not been bridged but at least it is the same. 1 suggest that if that approach had not been taken we would have fallen further behind.
The Hon. Member talked about all sorts of good, solid firms, training institutions, research institutions, and so on. I submit that we really do not need a regional economic development package at all if the case he is making is that we have good, solid, substantial firms in Atlantic Canada. I submit that particularly in rural areas-and that is my main concern. Those are the people I represent-we cannot start to
develop business until we have infrastructure in place. How can we have them all without water, sewer and proper energy sources? How can we have plants servicing areas and transporting a product to market unless we have proper roads? That does not make any sense at all. I submit that even though we have done some of that, we have not done enough. However, we as a Government started it, and I think the present Government should be continuing that program. There is no provision for that at all. None of the billion dollars can be spent on infrastructure, as I understand it. It does not have that flexibility. Sure, we can ask another Department to do it. We can ask the Department of Transport if we want. But transport does not have to do it and we do not have the money in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to do it ourselves. We had it before under DREE and under DRIE but we do not have it here. That is the difference.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I note there seems to be some difference of opinion among different residents of the Atlantic area from Labrador to New Brunswick. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) seems to be presenting a point of view that has also been reported in the Atlantic press. For instance, William Smith, who is a professor emeritus, economics, at the University of New Brunswick has been quoted as saying he does not think Ottawa has ever really understood what the real vital problem is, which is expanding the industrial base. 1 believe that was the argument Members from New Brunswick seemed to be making here this afternoon.
I note in his argument the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal was touting the high credibility of the engineering firms, which 1 expect received their high level of technology from building the bridges, and wharves and infrastructure that is perhaps fully developed in New Brunswick, but I understand from the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that that is not the case in Labrador. Is this just a New Brunswick-Labrador problem or does the Hon. Member still honestly believe there needs to be more infrastructure built in all parts of Atlantic Canada? Is there a regional or geographical difference in the needs within the Atlantic area between Labrador and New Brunswick?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, we can only speak as we find. I would think that the gap in terms of infrastructure is not confined to any one province. I suspect that there are probably areas of New Brunswick which do not have the type of infrastructure that Saint John and Fredericton would have. I suppose that there are areas of Nova Scotia and certainly areas of Prince Edward Island which are looking for an improved infrastructure.
As a matter of fact, this very day there is a plebiscite going on as to whether the people of Prince Edward Island should have a connection to the mainland. That is infrastructure. That is the point that I am making. This very day there is a judgment being made by the people of Prince Edward Island as to whether or not they want to improve their infrastructure.

s
January 18, 1988

How can one compete unless there is an infrastructure in place? One cannot. We cannot talk about putting icing on the cake until we have baked it.
I submit that there is a gap in infrastructure development between the Atlantic region and the rest of Canada. I suspect that that applies, too, to parts of northern Ontario. I suspect that if we were to ask the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to describe parts of northern Ontario, he would tell us that in certain areas there is a need for upgraded infrastructure. 1 can tell Hon. Members that there is certainly a need in my area. There are parts of the Northwest Territories and Yukon which could use improved infrastructure. There are parts of Canada that are experiencing the same kind of choice that the people of Prince Edward Island are making today. That is the point 1 am making. It cannot be one or the other. There has to be an agency which deals with infrastructure and industrial development at the same time.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian I would like to say how much I welcome this initiative and how much my constituents welcome it. In many ways we are two years ahead of the Atlantic region in most of my riding because we have the Enterprise Cape Breton Board, which is a system that parallels what is proposed in the Bill before the House today. We have an autonomous organization with tremendous flexibility and local control.
By way of disagreement with the Hon. Member from Newfoundland I would say that there is nothing in this Bill which precludes agreements dealing with infrastructure. In fact, when the Minister who spoke first today addressed the question, he said only that the $1 billion would not be some kind of slush fund to administer infrastructure programs. He made it clear that the money was earmarked for business to achieve productive employment for Atlantic Canadians. He also made it clear that infrastructure type programs were still possible under agreements with the provinces. He was referring here to ERDA-type agreements. The Bill is very clear in giving to ACOA total flexibility to introduce new programs and to bring forward initiatives that are deemed to be in the economic development interests of Atlantic Canada.
In closing my comments I would like to say that this is not something that is totally new. We do not need to reach into the clouds to speculate about what all this means. We have a precedent in Atlantic Canada. It is called Enterprise Cape Breton. It is an enterprise which was brought forward to reflect the philosophical direction of our Government. It is an enterprise which has been very successful. In fact, it has been so successful that in the last 12 months the unemployment rate in Cape Breton has dropped from the 21 per cent range down to the 15 per cent range. Success speaks for itself. The principles that have been embodied in this Bill are the principles that are working for the people of my riding.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were to check the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie)
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
on first reading he would see that the Minister said very clearly that this measure was not for infrastructure, that it is for business development. I do not have the Minister's speech in front of me but I was here when he made it.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: That is the $1 billion.


Bill Rompkey: That is right.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: But there is other money. There are the ERDAs.


Bill Rompkey: Where is the ERDA money? It is all running out. My ERDA has run out. I have ideas on the table now. Why does the Government not just renew the Labrador subagreement for a start? It has run out.
The danger is that other Departments will now say that because the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is in place we do not have to worry about the Atlantic area, we can worry about the West, northern Ontario and other places. There is a real danger that other Departments can get off the hook by simply pointing to this agency as the agency for the Atlantic area. Yet this agency has no provision, and certainly no funding, for infrastructure at the present time.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to say a few words on Bill C-103. We in the New Democratic Party caucus agree in general with the thrust of any type of regional development program that seeks to decentralize decision-making, to build on the strengths of local development, which seeks input from local people who know the regions well and which seeks to stimulate that which is possible within a region. We have no problems with that. In fact, this caucus at the beginning of this Parliament put on the road a committee which travelled across Canada to look specifically at the ways in which we can create employment in areas that have difficulty in attracting investments and in diversifying economic bases. We then produced a document entitled Canada Unlimited. That document was presented to the Government. It is a compendium of positive proposals with respect to moving to full employment. The Government can talk from now until the cows come home and tell us that it has created 125,000 jobs since it has been in office, or 80,000-


Lawrence I. O'Neil: One million!


John R. Rodriguez: I hear a Tory from the wilderness on my left. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that a Tory from the left is saying "One million"?


An Hon. Member:: What about Tories on this side of the House?


John R. Rodriguez: The Tories in front do not count. Only the ones on the left count when they are being positive. The question that one has to ask oneself, is where are those jobs being created?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: They are being created everywhere.


John R. Rodriguez: I hear a lamb bleating-

January 18, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry but I cannot seem to hear the Hon. Member. I would appreciate it if Hon. Members would allow him to say a few words.


Mr. Mayer:: I suggest when the Hon. Member speaks that he face the House. It is difficult for us to hear him when his back is to the rest of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: I suppose it all depends on the position of the Minister. 1 always face you, Mr. Speaker, which is the correct procedure. I know that where the summit lies and rests, Mr. Speaker, is right with you. If Tory Members find themselves to my back, I am sorry, but I cannot help that.


Bill Rompkey: They are behind you all the way, John.


John R. Rodriguez: I would rather have Tories behind me than Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to comment on these jobs that have been created. The bulk of them have been created within a 60-mile radius of Metropolitan Toronto. In my region the latest unemployment figures show an unemployment rate of 13.3 per cent. In Newfoundland the rate is still at 18 per cent. Throughout the Atlantic region the rates are at very high, unconscionable levels. That is after three years of having a Tory Government in office based on a program of jobs, jobs, jobs. Those regions are still suffering regional disparities.
In its report of the week of August 22 the Economic Council of Canada comments on the, "starkness of regional disparities" in Canada's growth rates as a major problem.
As I stated, we drafted a report entitled Canada Unlimited, which is a compendium of very positive proposals with respect to building up the economies of areas like the Atlantic, northeastern Ontario, northern British Columbia, and the northern Prairies. We presented that to the Government. To date there has not been one move to implement any of those positive suggestions.
What we have here before us is Bill C-103 which is the Government's response. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) calls this response his "last kick at the can". He tells the people of the Atlantic that this is their "last kick at the can". 1 think that he should be put in the can. Then all of us can go and have a kick at it.
Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, the depths of hopelessness? This Minister is saying if ACOA does not work, that is it. The Government is giving up. That is what the Minister of Public Works has stated. He states that this may be the "last kick at the can" as far as development programs for the region are concerned. He then turns around and tells the people in the
Atlantic region that they will be responsible for this program. The Government states that the people of the Atlantic will be responsible for the program. Of course, the suggestion is that if the program fails it is not the Government's fault. It is the blame-the-victim syndrome again. It is the fault of the Atlantic people not the fault of the federal Tory Government.
Earlier today we talked about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) before he became Prime Minister running in the by-election in Central Nova in the Atlantic region. He no sooner got that seat than they never saw him again. He cut and run. It is only when he was embarrassed while appearing at the 300 Club in Halifax that he put his face back in Central Nova, after he had deserted the Atlantic region. I want to tell the Tories that this is their last kick at the can. If they have the courage to call an election shortly, they will find themselves kicked right out of the can.
In principle we have no problem with decentralization. But when we look at what is proposed for this program, we cannot agree with the funding. In effect when listening to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) this morning, and when listening to the Government and the Prime Minister, one would think that the Government is putting up $1.05 billion over five years and that this is a great pile of new money that it is putting into the Atlantic region. In fact, it is the old shell game.
Since 1984 when the Conservatives took power, they have cut approximately $1.5 billion annually from the various federal government spending programs in the Atlantic region. Can we remember those heady days when they were all gung-ho on cutting deficits? They had old Erik Nielsen-velcro lips-who proposed the program called the Nielsen report which drastically cut programs in the Atlantic region. Every day in the House we were screaming at the Government about the cut-backs. Well, they came to $1.5 billion annually. What the Government has removed, it is now telling us it will compensate the Atlantic region by putting $200 million a year back in over five years to come to $1.05 billion. That is a laugh.
In this Bill we also have the principle of decentralization. The Government states that it will decentralize. It is not going to be like the old DREE programs where Don Jamieson was the Minister here and all the bureaucrats in Ottawa decided which programs were going to go in the Atlantic region, in northern Ontario, and in other regions of the country. They stated that that will not be done any more. It was the old sleight of hand. They stated that they were decentralizing and setting up this agency with 19 members on the board. I will come to those specifics about the 19 in a moment. But there will be 19 members on the board. Not all of them have been appointed as yet. The headquarters will be in Moncton. There will be sub-head offices in each of the Atlantic provinces. There will be 300 bureaucrats.
The question you might want to ask, Mr. Speaker, is that not decentralization? I know that is what you are thinking, Mr. Speaker. I can see by the look that that is the thought you
January 18, 1988

have in your mind. As much as 1 know that you would like to support that principle of decentralization, Mr. Speaker, it is not decentralization. When you strip away all of the verbiage and the rhetoric, the decisions are still going to be made here in Ottawa, and of all places, in the other place.
In the discussions on Bill C-22 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) stated that it was an undemocratic place. They were not elected over there. Senator Lowell Murray will be the chief honcho for this operation. In fact, that is set out very clearly in Clauses 5, 6, 7, 20, and 21. The powers rest with the Minister who is a Senator and who is not elected. The powers rest over there. He will then appoint a chief operations officer, a chap by the name of McPhail. His duties are the duties of a Deputy Minister. The bureaucracy rests here. The Minister has the authority to approve or not approve any project. The Minister calls the shots, so the shots will still be here in Ottawa. That is not decentralization at all. In fact, Clause 11 reveals the close ties between the President and the Minister. It states:
(2) The President is the chief executive officer of the Agency and, under the direction of the Minister, has control and supervision over the work, officers and employees of the Agency.
So what is the purpose of the board? The question then is, what does the board do? The board has no power. It is a roaring rabbit, a toothless tiger. That is what it is. It is the old program all dressed in drag. It is the old DREE without the bucks, or with money that was taken from the Atlantic in the first place.
What does the board, the agency, those 19 Tories do? They assist and advise-"assist" is the word. In the legislation it says that the board's purpose is to assist. We do not know what assist means. Does it mean assisting them with their fund raising for the Tory Party? So far most of them who have been appointed are baghacks and flicks for the Tory Party. I can go through the list for you because you may not have that information, Mr. Speaker.
That is not our view of decentralization. Decentralization for us means that the decision making rests there. If there is a board, then the board is accountable and it is accountable to the regions. Decisions have to be made in the regions, not here in Ottawa, as this legislation allows.
We also have a concern about commitment to regional development. As we see it, in spite of what the Government has said about its commitment to regional development, that commitment over the years has declined. Over the past 25 years less than 3 per cent of total federal economic expenditures have been applied to regional development.
In 1984-85, explicitly, regional development for all of the Atlantic region was in the order of $230 million. By the way, that is around 15 per cent of what the UI pay-out is in the Atlantic. Expenditures on DRIE's industrial incentive programs have decreased in real terms from $9 a person in
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
1969-70 to 1973-74 to $4 a person in 1984-85 to 1985-86. For Newfoundland, the reduction in the same period was from $9 a person to $3 a person. That is Tory progress; two steps forward and five steps back. Expenditures under GDA/ERDA has declined from $16 a person in 1974-75 to 1978-79 to $14 in 1984-85 to 1988-89. For Newfoundland, the reduction for the same period was from $126 a person to $80 a person. We believe that if you make a commitment to regional development then you have to follow through with the commitment in bucks. It has to be a commitment in decentralization.
The other thing concerning us about the way this agency has developed, and we have noticed it in the same way with the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, FEDNOR for short, is the insidious implementation of the patronage principle. It is another principle that we in the New Democratic Party criticized during the federal election of 1984 and have continued to criticize. When we look at the appointments to boards such as this agency, we find that patronage has crept into what ought to be the voice of the region. The people who are qualified in the region the people recommended by the region, should be sitting on these agency boards, but instead it has become a trough. The major criteria for placement on the board is the contribution you have made to the Conservative Party or some particular function you have within the Conservative Party.
The Prime Minister said in an interview just the other day that he was so concerned about any possible alliances between the New Democratic Party and the Liberals after the next election that he had better make sure to appoint more Tories on a patronage basis to boards and commissions so that Tory policy can continue after we have kicked the can and he is out of office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Patronage has become a way of operation with the Government. It has become like breathing, as my colleague says. It is like slipping into a comfortable Gucci. The concern we have here is that nothing in the Bill sets out how nominees are to be put forward for this agency. There is no requirement that the board be comprised of any other group than the business sector. What about the spokesmen for labour, fishermen, farmers, the co-ops, the voluntary organizations and social agencies? This is an exclusive blue ribbon board, and I say that literally. That is what it is. The minute that happens, it loses credibility with the people for whom it should serve and people become very cynical about the whole process.
There is a certain skepticism about the way the objective of this whole agency works. On the one hand we had Mr. McPhail saying that the agency is only interested in specific projects, not macro-economic developments in the Atlantic, only specific economic endeavours. Then we have a Mr. Dineen who sits on the board and is quoted as saying "We are the board. The agency is interested in looking at the macroeconomic principles of the region". We have this contradiction

January 18, 1988
Educational Leave Programs
in what the leadership is saying, what the Deputy Minister is saying, and what the agency members have in mind.
Lastly, there is no provision in the Bill for an evaluation of the projects that have been approved. The only evaluation is at the front end of the operation before the grants or the loans are made. There is no process to evaluate the program after money is granted to a particular project. That was one of the downfalls of DREE. I suggest that the Government look at Canada Unlimited and try to implement some of the more positive proposals that would certainly create employment in the Atlantic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. There are still 10 minutes left for questions and comments.
It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED PARTICIPATION Op WORKERS IN PAID EDUCATIONAL LEAVE PROGRAMS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure enabling workers to participate voluntarily in paid educational leave programs, in order to foster their vocational training and their adaptability to the requirements of the labour market, thus reducing the impact of the devaluation of their skills and, by extension, overall unemployment, and encouraging economic growth and the security of Canadian workers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to put forward the rather simple proposition that Canada's continued prosperity depends on the training of our workers. Further, it is clear that we are not doing nearly enough. It is perhaps trite to say but nevertheless I think evident, that it is time for action and leadership by the Parliament of this country and by its Government. It is time to do something to remedy the situation and to deal with a problem which is clearly evident, the problem that Canada does not do nearly enough training as compared to our competitors in the global market-place.
Furthermore, there ate a number of well thought out policies which can be implemented immediately. My motion today addresses one such policy, that of paid educational leave, which was studied in 1983 by a task force set up by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration. Such a policy has been implemented successfully in a number of European countries and in Japan. The concept was endorsed recently by the Economic Council of Canada in its 1987 report entitled Innovation and Jobs in Canada.
Last week, I attended the National Conference on Technology and Innovation in Canada. I can report to Members of the House that the question of training of the workforce was a matter which received prominent attention in the workshops and the plenary sessions. Mr. David Culver, the Chairman of Alcan, reminded us in his keynote address of the social and cultural fall-out of modernization. He said that there is almost always a loss of jobs when a company modernizes itself or when a country goes through such a process. He stated that there is a clear role for Government to ensure that there is timely retraining for those who are displaced.
I would like to dwell briefly on some comparisons with other countries. Japan is perhaps the best example of dedication to training or retraining. We have now become familiar with the idea that the Japanese bank on employees' loyalty to companies to make it worth-while to train and retrain. They are not afraid that their employees will leave them for better jobs after investing considerable amounts in their training.
For every one hour of training received by a North American worker, the average Japanese worker receives approximately 100 hours of training. Indeed, similar figures were referred to by John Evans, the President of Allelix, at the conference in Toronto last week. He said that employees in the computer industry in Canada receive two hours of training for every 100 to 200 hours received in Japan.
The Nissan company recently opened a plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, I believe. It is quite remarkable but that company spent $63 million to train workers before the plant door was even opened and before even one car came off the production line.
In West Germany, the situation is similar. That country has a number of well developed vocational training programs which are largely credited as being the foundation of West Germany's economic success. These programs are administered co-operatively by the federal and provincial or state Governments. They use what is known as the dual system in which there is a mix of on-the-job and off-the-job training.
In 1984 and 1985, Siemens, a large manufacturing firm, took on some 10,000 apprentices. It spent an equivalent of some $250 million on these apprentices in addition to the $300 million it spends on training its ongoing personnel. This one company maintains a staff of 500 full-time teachers and 3,000 part-time teachers.
Of course, West German firms responded to the worldwide recession of 1982 by increasing, not decreasing, the number of trainees taken on by some 46,000 persons. In West Germany, there were 677,000 apprentices in West Germany. In 1984, one year later, this figure had risen to 706,000.
While the training figures of Japan and West Germany are increasing, Canada's are decreasing. In 1983-84, participants in what was known as the National Training Program which was run by the Department of Employment and Immigration totalled some 277,000 persons. This fell to approximately
January 18, 1988

206.000	in 1985-86. The National Training Program was absorbed by the Canadian Jobs Strategy in September of 1985 and became Skill Shortages and Skill Investments. In 1986-87, these two programs registered a total of 88,700 participants and it is estimated that in this fiscal year, 1987-88, only
117.000 participants will be involved in those two programs, Skill Shortages and Skill Investments. Again, that is 117,000 as compared to some 277,000 only three or four years ago, not even half the number.

Mr. Speaker, a policy of paid educational leave would make it possible for working men and women to earn days of leave for the purpose of education or professional training. The possibility of such a program was adressed in 1983 by the Skill Development Leave Task Force. It was one of several programs considered by this task force. Its members emphasized the fact that educational leave would offer equal opportunities for all only if it were biased in favor of the academically poor.
The experience in other countries has demonstrated that adult education is often the privileged domain of those men and women who have already benefited from a high school or even university education. An increased participation by blue collar workers and members of all classes of our society would depend on the implementation of special programs directed at minority groups or team workers in order to discourage the formation of a class of workers who are both unskilled and underpaid.
The National Advisory Panel which followed the task force study suggested that such leave could be earned at a rate of one day for every thirty days of work. In this case, Mr. Speaker, each working man and woman could gain as much as eight days of educational leave per year of work. The National Advisory Panel recommended then to the federal and provincial governments to adopt immediately legislative measures to implement such programs.
The Economic Council of Canada, in its 1987 research report entitled Innovation and Jobs in Canada, endorsed the concept of paid educational leave. It said:
We would like to focus attention once again on the feasibility of implementing a paid educational leave policy in Canada.
With respect to funding, the national advisory panel, in 1984, again recommended a 1 per cent personal income surtax and a 3 per cent corporate income surtax in order to raise the approximately $500 million necessary to operate such a program. One reason for calling for such a surtax was to encourage the participation of all workers. As I said earlier in my remarks, it is mainly the well-educated who benefit from various forms of continuing education and adult education in Canada. As I also said, special measures are required, such as including workplace delegates to encourage all workers to participate in the program.
Educational Leave Programs
The national advisory panel, in considering its funding mechanism, thought that by paying for such a program through a personal income surtax all workers would be prompted to involve themselves in retraining because they would be paying for it. They would see this on their tax bill every year and therefore would be encouraged to get a benefit from some of their tax dollars and get involved in some form of ongoing educational program.
At the time that recommendation was made, I had certain concerns about the funding mechanism. As you will recall, in 1984 we were perhaps 18 months into a recovery from the 1982 recession. The balance sheets of Canadian companies had been hit hard. I felt that a corporate income surtax would be hard to contemplate. No one likes to contemplate the idea of increased personal income taxes either. At the time I felt that the federal Government ought to share the cost of establishing a universal paid educational leave program on a, for example, fifty-fifty basis. I felt that federal funds could be made available through reallocation of and savings in existing programs, including industrial support programs.
We are far too ready to put money into bricks and mortar and new machinery but reluctant to invest in our workforce. To this day 1 feel that there is room within the various industrial support programs for the retraining of workers, and my views on the funding mechanism have not changed over the course of the past couple of years. We have seen very stiff increases in personal income taxes imposed by the Conservative Government since the 1984 election and I feel that an additional income tax is probably out of the question in the minds of most Canadians. Therefore the federal Government ought to share the cost of establishing such a program, as 1 said, on a fifty-fifty basis. The part not paid by the Government would be paid by the employer and employee, with the amount subject to negotiation between the parties.
You will see that my motion is presented in the way of a recommendation. It says:
Thai, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing a measure enabling workers to participate
voluntarily in paid educational leave programs-
It is framed in that fashion because, as you know, Private Members cannot put forward Bills which entail the expenditure of money. That is a government prerogative and requires Royal Assent. If we did not have this restriction you would see a Private Members' Bill which would propose actual legislation to implement such a program. It would probably contain recommendations for funding in the first year of the program and perhaps in several subsequent years.
However, as 1 said, because Private Members cannot put forward a Bill in that fashion, I have framed this motion in a very innocuous fashion. All I am asking the Government to do is to consider the advisability of such a program. I would like to suggest to my colleagues that such an innocent proposal is worthy of their support.

January 18, 1988
Educational Leave Programs
A I said, this idea formed the basis of a task force study in 1983. It was subsequently sent to a group of business leaders and union personnel and government officials. Some 250 people from across Canada studied the matter and a national advisory panel recommended that legislation be introduced to put the idea into practice. The Economic Council of Canada endorsed the concept in 1987, and there is widespread recognition that we are not doing nearly enough to retrain our workforce or, more correctly, permit it to engage in various forms of ongoing training.
Therefore, I hope my colleagues in this House who support this proposal will do so and hopefully we will be able to pass this motion by the end of today's debate and therefore a very sensible recommendation would be sent to the Government.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Motion No. M-27 put forward by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). The idea he suggests is indeed an excellent one. It shows foresight and a grasp of what Canadians truly need to prepare for successful entry into the labour force. The Government must have measures in place to foster vocational training. We must help Canadians adapt to the requirements of the labour market. The Government has done so to some extent. After all, one million more Canadians are working today than were when the Government took office. More will be done when the free trade pact with the United States takes effect.
While the motion was no doubt presented with great sincerity, it was brought forth with a surprising lack of knowledge. I cannot quite believe that the Hon. Member is not aware of the fact that to a large extent the very measures he talks about are already in place and have been for more than two years. Many people, including some in my riding, have benefited from the programs.
I refer, of course, to the various components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Canadian Jobs Strategy has six different aspects which do exactly what the Member in his motion says we need. 1 would like to describe briefly two of the initiatives of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. One is called Job Development and the other Job Entry.
The Job Development option is designed to assist one of Canada's most serious human resource problems-the longterm unemployed. It combines work experience and training to update and adapt the skills of people who have not had a steady job for six months or more. Job Development is not an ineffective make-work program as it was in the previous administration under a different name. It concerns itself with what is truly important. It helps people improve their permanent employment prospects by enabling them to acquire relevant skills.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Job Development offers employers a wage subsidy to hire and train workers offering them the skills they need to meet the demands of a changing
market-place. Businesses, community groups, municipalities, the voluntary sector, and even individuals can act as employers. People participating in Job Development initiatives can count, not only on training at the work site, but on classroom instruction as well. That training is thorough because the initiatives can last for up to one year. People can learn a lot in that amount of time.
As I mentioned, sponsors receive wage subsidies. 1 am happy to be able to add that they also receive financial contributions toward capital costs and training. If they hire disabled people, they can receive up to $10,000 toward the cost of any structural alterations which may be necessary. Sponsors also receive up to $40 per day per client to cover training costs. The program may also pay for the hiring of a project manager.
As we all know, the Canadian Jobs Strategy uses whatever works best to train the long-term unemployed. Non-profit agencies need not be intimidated by Job Development because the program may cover up to 100 per cent of a project's total costs.
I do not wish to recite program details. Results are what count and results are what we have. I am sure that my hon. colleague will be pleased to know that close to 122,000 Canadians will have participated in Job Development projects by the end of this fiscal year. That is 122,000 individual Canadians being readied to meet the modern labour markets, demanding requirements. More than $623 million will have been spent to make them ready. As you can see, Job Development is helping many Canadians.
Let me give one example of a Job Development initiative. In Penticton, British Columbia, Kenwood Furniture Factory started operations in 1986 and, with the help of Job Development backing, was able to hire 18 unemployed residents to train as machine operators. The duration of the project was from March to October, 1986, at a cost of $142,000. During this period Kenwood's over-all staff grew from 35 to 110 employees.
What is more, this company has maintained its interest in local disadvantaged workers based on the success of its Job Development experience. Further agreements have been signed with Kenwood to the benefit of the company, the local economy, and, of course, the individuals who are now a productive part of the local workforce.
The Hon. Member will be pleased to know that Job Development is not the only initiative we have to help people in the various ways he suggested a while ago. Another feature of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is Job Entry. Since 1985 the Government has had in place this innovative and forwardthinking program designed to harness the employment potential of a vast and hitherto under-tapped labour pool, that represented by youth entering and women returning to the job market.
The unemployment rate for high school drop-outs is now almost 30 per cent. Altogether, including those who have not

January 18, 1988

completed secondary or post-secondary education, there are more than 400,000 young people who cannot break into the workforce. A similar challenge faces many of the 200,000 women who annually re-enter the work force after working for several years in the home. Some of them are unsure of themselves, underestimate their abilities, or feel intimidated by employers looking for relevant work experience. Job Entry and Re-entry will give them the necessary confidence. To acquire skills and experience these groups require an integrated program of training and work experience to enable them to become active members of the labour force. Job Entry, yet another component of this Government's comprehensive Canadian Jobs Strategy is such a program.
Job Entry, if we are talking about youth, or Re-entry, if we are talking about women returning to the labour market, helps Canadians who are having difficulty making the transition into the labour market. With a combination of up to 52 weeks of skills training and practical work experience Job Entry or Reentry provides for individual needs while at the same time addressing local labour market requirements.
How does it do this? For starters, the amount of financial assistance that participants receive while on training is based on their individual circumstances. Supplementary allowances are paid where cases warrant it to help defray the costs of child care, transportation, and living away from home. Moreover, business, labour, community groups, the public sector, and even individuals provide the source for the project co-ordinators who design the training plans, recruit and assess participants, and place them with the work site hosts.
In this way, Mr. Speaker, Job Entry and Re-entry projects address both sides of the question. They give participants the chance to do on-the-job training and gain experience while they are at it. They give participants a chance to prove their worth to prospective employers. In addition, they provide training and experience in skills that employers in Canadian communities require to meet their present and future needs.
The Government is committed to encouraging economic growth and the security of Canadian workers of today and tomorrow. To do this we must invest in our citizens. So far this year the Government has invested approximately $415 million in the Job Entry and Re-entry Program.
Is this approach working? The answer is a resounding yes. Across Canada more than 150,000 people are currently involved in Job Entry and Re-entry projects. The placement rate of previous participants is very high.
In closing, I agree with the Hon. Member for Laurier that the Government should have in place measures to allow workers to keep their skills up to date and relevant to the changing labour market. I repeat that these measures are alive and well through the components of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. They will be expanded upon when the free trade pact takes effect by January 1, 1989.
Educational Leave Programs
In addition, these initiatives under the CJS are much more than the paid educational leave programs that the Hon. Member mentions in his motion.
The vision of our strategy, which looks to tomorrow's as well as today's worker, is much more far-reaching.
Therefore, I can tell the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) that this Government not only meets but exceeds by a wide margin the demands set forth in this motion.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). It provides a sense of vision of what can happen to Canada's workforce.
My riding of Hamilton Mountain has seen shutdowns of many plants and factories. We must recognize the implications of these plant closures. It may affect an individual who has worked 20 years on a plant floor, expecting to finish his working life there. A sudden plant closure brings a whole sense of insecurity and loss of self image. As we tend to consider the implications of such closures on the whole economy, we forget the individual implications of these kinds of closures. Not only do individuals lose a sense of purpose and identity, the pressures on the families often result in the disruption of communities.
This motion identifies that there need not be a crisis if such programs are put in place. We have also recognized, certainly in the last 25 years, that human development takes place not only at the school-age level, but throughout one's life as information, growth and education takes place. 1 hope such growth could occur throughout one's lifetime.
If a policy such as the one suggested in this motion became public policy, it would not be necessary to constantly to revert to the kind of CJS, program as the Hon. Member for Willow-dale (Mr. Oostrom) has discussed. He is speaking of how we meet immediate problems that develop from a high unemployment rate.
Today we are in a post industrial society, which often frightens many people. Therefore, we do not deal with the implications of such a society and what changes will take place in the workplace not just in the immediate future but 25 years from now.
When we consider jobs of the future, we must also look at a workforce about which we can be proud in Canada. It is a workforce that is very skilled, well informed, and includes people who care about their production and creativity. If we allow them to make choices and garner some skills and information, we will have a workforce and indeed a society that begins to move steadily and efficiently into other levels of work without losing that self confidence which is so important to individuals.

January 18, 1988
Educational Leave Programs
There are various ways and means to implement such a policy. 1 agree that it should be cost-shared with the federal Government, the employer and employees, along with some built-in guarantees, to avoid some of the problems experienced with the pension funds. There must be a guarantee that this fund is specifically for educational leave programs.
I agree with the notion that it is a shared policy which everyone controls.
We should consider the experience of other countries, such as Sweden, where there has been a major restructuring of the economy, with a literally full employment situation. Such policy has allowed an entire workforce to move from a plant that is inefficient and switch to a new market.
Such a program would decrease individual pressures on families. The sense of security within families is related to the sense of security people have in the workplace. Paid leave for educational purposes would mean that an employee may choose to take such a leave and return to the original job. That is quite different from what the Hon. Member for Willowdale was describing.
Many studies have indicated that these employees who have taken such leave return to their jobs much more productive and satisfied with their job situation. It gives them a sense of security that they will not have to flounder forever if there is a decision to close the plant in which they work. As well, such a policy would prevent the type of roller coaster mentality as we have seen in Hamilton in the last two years where employees hear that their plant may close, then will not close. A program like this would provide a sense of security that the employee has other skills with which he can approach other companies. This in turn provides a sense of self worth and the confidence to be able to make a living and a contribution within the same community and the family unit.
Paid educational leave also helps people to recognize the resources that exist within their communities. This can only stabilize and build a local community, which is very important.
1 have been amazed at the number of people to whom I have talked who have not been aware of the range of skills that are required within their communities. Many people who are laid off are afraid that they will have to move from their community and disrupt their family.
1 hope the House will approve this motion because it is very innocuous, as the Member suggests. It simply suggests that the House is willing to have a vision and recognize that society is not static, but one in which we want to deal with the challenges of the future and ensure that our adult world is as prepared as our youth.
I urge the House to support this motion and, in conclusion, I want to complement the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). He has shown some vision in his concept of employment and unemployment. Surely the House can accede to such thought and support this motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to deal today with Motion No. 27 in the name of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure enabling workers to participate voluntarily in paid educational leave programs, in order to foster their vocational training and their adaptability to the requirements of the labour market, thus reducing the impact of the devaluation of their skills and, by extension, overall unemployment, and encouraging economic growth and the security of Canadian workers.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to indicate to my honorable friend and the other members of this House that the government addressed this issue quite some time ago. Ever since this government came to power, training and on the job experience are elements which go hand in hand and their complementarity is one of the major tenets of our philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, this is why, immediately after coming into office, we reviewed existing programs to assess their compatibility with the Canadian labour market and the effectiveness of existing training programs. We quickly realized that the programs were out-dated and did not meet the needs of Canadians, and we immediately got to work.
We had to consider a number of components, such as the economic situation, the employment situation, the gap between training and available jobs, as well as the distribution of potential participants. We also wanted to learn the opinion of all participants on the labour market. We then initiated extensive consultations to inform and contact all groups and individuals concerned, employers, employer associations, workers, labour organizations, business people, training institutions and the voluntary sector.
Thanks to the information we received from all these people, we were able to develop a strategy which takes into account the structure of our labour force and the necessary changes and establishes a link between training, current economic activity and real jobs. This program, the Canadian Job Strategy, was developed in co-operation with all parties involved and is aimed at improving the Canadian labour market.
Mr. Speaker, the Jobs Strategy implemented in 1985 provides training for Canadians. It takes into account the need not to be overtaken by the constant evolution of the labour market.
The Job Strategy involves a complete re-organization of job-related Government programs, as well as a new direction to develop and use fully our most important resource, the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, the Job Strategy in fact reflects a certain philosophy. This strategy, which is targeted to the needs of Canadians, is flexible, dynamic and able to adjust to the
January 18, 1988

requirements of our regions, industrial sectors and individual Canadians.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy is not a panacea, Mr. Speaker. However, in the light of the considerable success it has already achieved since it was implemented, it has proved to be a very effective remedy for unemployment and either partial or total lack of training. It is also a formidable tool for adjusting individuals and communities to a constantly changing labour market in this country.
I am not going to give you a detailed description of all the programs involved. I will leave that to my colleagues. However, 1 would like to enumerate briefly some of the types of training and job experience that are part of the Jobs Strategy.
I will start with training. One formula alternates work and education, which is particularly useful for students who want to test their skills during their studies and for young drop-outs who want to go back to school.
Training in industry helps the trainee acquire technical skills that can be used immediately on the job.
Another formula provides a combination of theoretical training and practical experience. Training is given in an educational institution or in a classroom on the employer's premises. Practical training is acquired on the job.
Next, job creation.
Businesses may be set up by individual workers or by groups of unemployed workers. Students can start their own businesses, especially during the summer.
Our summer employment programs help create several hundred thousand jobs. We also help declining communities. If there are visible signs of economic renewal, we designate the community under an assistance program which helps set up agencies to examine the situation and take appropriate action.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Jobs Strategy deals with all aspects of the labour market, be it training or job experience, and focusses on all parties concerned: employers, workers, the unemployed, students, and communities.
The Jobs Strategy has provided ways of meeting the challenge of technological change by dealing directly with the problem of training. The Strategy makes the most of human resources and helps Canadians to acquire the training and skills they need to obtain useful and durable employment.
Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Portneuf which I represent, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has helped hundreds of workers to find gainful employment. It has helped many small businesses to create jobs and give their employees the appropriate training.
Mr. Speaker, 1 was elected to this House in September 1984, and as soon as I opened my constituency office it was invaded by tens or hundreds of unemployed who came to ask for help in finding jobs. At that point 1 told them we are working to put in place a program to help them re-enter a
Educational Leave Programs
changing labour market. Even though technologies have changed, we are going to give you the tools, the skills needed to find a job and keep on contributing to this country's progress and development.
When in 1985 we introduced the Jobs Strategy Program, I must tell you that it met with a most enthusiastic response in my area. You have no idea how many requests I received from companies, small businesses wishing to take part in that program, to help create jobs. But 1 wanted to ensure that those jobs were really permanent. Because there was a lingering fear, since for 20 years the Canadian Government had been creating programs and all the time only temporary jobs were involved. We, the seniors, remember the Canada Works program, 20 weeks at work, 50 weeks unemployed, and if when you came back you were chummy with the powers that be at that time, you had a bigger chance of finding work again.
We said no. We are going to give equal opportunity to all to find meaningful jobs. This is what the program makes possible. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my area, the rate of job retention is above all expectations. Officials at the Job Development Centre in the Quebec area tell us, they tell me: Mr. Ferland, this is one of the best programs we have had to administer and work with. It is a pleasure to work with that program, because when we are dealing with a firm, when we are dealing with an unemployed, we are almost certain he or she will have a permanent job.
And I made my own survey. It has no claim to being a scientific survey, but I found that almost every single participant in that program now has a permanent job, not always with the firm for which he or she was trained and in which he or she was trained, but a job with another firm. They had a real opportunity to find meaningful employment, real jobs as we say in our part of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague for Laurier (Mr. Berger) to read the available literature on the Jobs Strategy Program. He will find out that the numerous aspects involved in that program meet the training needs of Canadians. He will have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that what I am saying is true. If he wants more information, I am convinced that the people who work in Canada Employment Centres would be delighted to explain to him in detail how this program works. They are in a position to tell him that this is probably the best program ever implemented by the Canadian Government to help Canadians of all ages find permanent employment and, therefore, participate in the development of their region and their country, as well as provide a decent living for their families.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that, already, we can safely say that the Canadian Jobs Strategy has proven its worth.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for

January 18, 1988
Educational Leave Programs
Laurier (Mr. Berger) for bringing forward what I consider to be a very important idea. I am disappointed that the government spokesman seemed to have missed the point. That Member spoke about the Canadian Jobs Strategy and in particular about Job Entry. These deal primarily with the unemployed. What the Hon. Member for Laurier is proposing, and quite rightly so, is what I think is generally accepted across the country that is to say that there have to be training and retraining programs for people who are already employed.
In this respect as an example the Kenwood furniture factory which hired the unemployed was mentioned. However, what about the workers who are already working for Kenwood? They have a right to retraining, too. The point is this. As technology develops it develops more rapidly all the time. The businesses which will succeed are those which apply technology. However, as technology is applied, jobs are eliminated. Thus there is a rapidly growing need for retraining. This is a serious and fundamentally important issue. It is important in big business and in small business. Some companies do this already.
The Hon. Member for Laurier mentioned that in Siemens there are already 500 teachers in that company alone. I believe he mentioned 10,000 people who were taken on as apprentices. Imagine that within that company, Mr. Speaker, there are 500 teachers to do what is being done in high schools and universities of that size in Canada.
The important thing is that Canadian workers who are now employed in big and small business and who are the victims of changing technology have a right to training and retraining. This is an investment. Just as one invests in capital, one can invest in human capital. That is the point. Not only do they have a right but it is productive, efficient and effective for a company to carry out that type of retraining if it wants to have workers who are up to the mark. Matters can no longer be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. There needs to be put in place a program of this kind across the country, particularly if we are to enter into a free trade situation with the United States.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he announced the $1.3 billion for research and development, put it in the context of free trade. He said that if we are really going to compete with the Americans then we have to be up to the mark on research and development. I submit that that is only one part of the equation. We must also be up to the mark on training and retraining. There must be a concomitant government package to match that R and D initiative on training and retraining. It is essential. It is particularly essential for single industry towns.
For example, let us consider the Iron Ore Company of Canada of which the Prime Minister was formerly the head. It has an in-service training program. However, there is no guarantee to those workers that they will have paid educational leave on a regular basis. When that mine closes down, as it will inevitably close down some day, and if there is no alternative for employment in that area, then the only thing that those
workers will have to fall back on, since there is no income guarantee for them, is their ability to find another job. I am not talking here about unemployed workers. 1 am talking about workers who are already employed in that particular mining industry. Whether or not they are able to find other jobs depends on their level of training and whether they are up to speed with their colleagues and other citizens across Canada.
If the Government insists that we enter into a free trade arrangement with the United States-and I do not mean by any stretch of the imagination to support that initiative-and if the Government believes there must be a commitment to R and D, then it has also at the same time to agree that there must be a commitment to paid educational leave for workers. If that is not done then our firms will not be able to compete in the market-place and our workers will be disadvantaged.
This is an idea whose time has come in Canada, as it has in other countries, other competitors in the G-7 such as West Germany and others. In that country a measure such as this is already in place. I make the point again that we are not talking about programs for the unemployed. We are talking about programs for workers who are already employed and who desperately need to be constantly upgraded if they are to be up to the mark. It is a human right and it is an economic investment.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to enter into debate this afternoon on the Hon. Member's motion regarding part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Hon. Member's point of view is with respect to vocational training and educational leave. 1 find it interesting that perhaps the Hon. Members is somewhat naive with respect to what has happened over the last three years concerning the attitudes and the direction the Government has taken in doing the very thing for which he asks. Clearly, he did not review the work done from the time the Liberal administration left power. If he had done that he would have found that a tremendous effort has since been made and will continue to be made in the very areas about which he presents his motion. It is not difficult to understand that perhaps he has not researched this matter the way in which he should have researched it.
To illustrate my point I will refer to something that is taking place in my own backyard, right in my own constituency of Selkirk-Interlake. In this area what the Hon. Member asks for is being done on a bigger scale than it was ever done before. I refer to the Selkirk Training Centre, with which he may or may not be familiar. Over the course of the years I have taken a very keen interest in the work done at just one facility, and there are many, which has adopted part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Job Entry and the Job Development Programs. The one to which 1 am referring is a training plant. 1 am glad he recognizes the need to move more in the direction of training for those who find themselves in limbo either because of being transferred from a plant that was
January 18, 1988

closed or because they have become redundant and do not have the skills to go on to something in the immediate area.
The Hon. Member has said that this has happened to a vast group of Canadians. It has happened to a number of young Canadians in the age group of 17 years of age to 24 years of age who did not exercise the ability to train themselves or to put themselves into a position from which they might become employed. This is the very area in which the Selkirk training program works. We have put in as much as $400,000 a year in funds. The most important fact after all my years in working with this group is the success rate it has achieved.
I have the statistics in front of me which go back for three years. In the first year it is estimated, from about the 60 people taking training, that the re-employment ability of those trained hit 35 per cent. Last year it hit 70 per cent. This is as a direct result of entering into this type of training. That is the type of success that we would like to achieve and that the Canadian Jobs Strategy has achieved in my area. If it has not done so in the area of the Hon. Member, I would recommend that he go to the Minister and discuss some of the projects, like those 1 have in my riding, in order that he can help those people who are less fortunate. Perhaps this would be a good exercise for the Member and make him aware of what is going on in the Canadian Jobs Strategy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 is deemed to have been moved.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT OPPOSED APPEAL OF LUC PAQUETTE TO HAVE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TRIAL CONDUCTED IN FRENCH/RIGHT TO HOLD

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on November 30 and December 1, 1987, 1 asked questions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Muironey) concerning a decision in February, 1986 by a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. That decision provided that an accused, a Mr. Luc Paquette, could be tried in Alberta for a federal offence, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, entirely in the French language.
In other words, that court decided that Mr. Paquette had a right to a trial with a French-speaking judge, jury, and Crown Attorney. This right had been sought by Mr. Paquette under
Adjournment Debate
Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and in particular Section 462(1). As I stated, Mr. Paquette was successful at the trial level.
Unfortunately, the federal Government, this Muironey Government, appealed this ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal, opposing the accused's right to a French language trial. I note that this is the same federal Government which purports to support the extension of the French language throughout the country. This is the same Government led by a Prime Minister who said to me in the House of Commons on November 30, 1987:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says it is terrible, when in fact this Government has never failed to promote both our official languages.
When the Prime Minister states that his Government has never failed to promote both official languages, how does he account for the fact that his own Attorney General appealed Mr. Luc Paquette's right to a French language trial? Why did the Government go to court in Alberta to block Mr. Paquette's right to a French language trial?
To be clear about it, the Prime Minister did reply to me in the House on December 1, 1987, that the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in the Paquette case was rendered in two parts. First, the Court of Appeal did rule that the French language can be used as a right in criminal proceedings in Alberta because Section 110 of the former Northwest Territories Act is still in force in Alberta for criminal matters. The Prime Minister replied to me in the House that the federal Government supported this aspect of the case.
However, what the Prime Minister failed to indicate, and why 1 rise again tonight, was that according to the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Northwest Territories Act only gives the accused the right to speak French with the use of an interpreter in court. In other words, there is no obligation under the Act to provide a French-speaking judge and jury.
I have confirmed in Alberta, and spoken to Marjorie Mora, who is the lawyer for the accused, that there are enough French-speaking judges and Crown Attorneys in Alberta, and that other trials were already taking place there entirely in French prior to the federal Government becoming involved to block Mr. Paquette.
In his answers to me, the Prime Minister failed to refer to the second part of the Paquette decision. He failed to indicate why his Government wanted the Court of Appeal to overturn the finding of the trial judge who held that the individual was entitled to an entirely French trial, and who held that Alberta's failure to proclaim Part XIV.1 of the Criminal Code was a violation of the Charter.
This is not the only time that this Government has opposed the right to a full trial in the French language. A short while ago, in a case called Ringuette v. the Queen, 1 am advised that the federal Government appeared before the Newfoundland Court of Appeal and successfully opposed the right of an accused to a trial in the French language under the same Part

January 18, 1988
Adjournment Debate
XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code. Neither Alberta nor Newfoundland have proclaimed those parts in effect. I want to ask the Prime Minister as I asked him in December, why the Government has not moved on its own to proclaim in Alberta Part XIV. 1. The federal Government has the right to do so pursuant to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985 which this Government brought in and which gives it the right to proclaim the provision in force when the Attorney General of the province and the federal Minister of Justice have not reached an agreement on an appropriate proclamation date.
Surely that date has arrived by now. That section should be proclaimed in effect. Shame on a government which goes to the court of appeal to prevent someone in the official language minority group from being tried fully in his or her own language.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on November 30 and December 1 last year, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) asked the Prime Minister to explain the position taken by this Government in the Paquette case, where the Alberta Court of Appeal recently handed down a judgment on language of trial rights.
The Prime Minister pointed out that our Government has never failed to promote both official languages of this country, and everybody, including the Hon. Member for York Centre, knows he is right. He also said that in the Paquette case, the judgment consisted of two parts, and that Bill C-72, which concerns the status and use of official languages in Canada, will soon correct a situation that had been allowed to persist by the previous Government. It is easy for the Hon. Member for York Centre to criticize now he is on the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the Alberta Court of Appeal handed down the first half of its decision in the Paquette case. This part dealt with the appplication of Section 110 of the Northwest Territories Act to criminal proceedings in Alberta. In a majority decision, the Court maintained that Section 110 was still in effect in Alberta with respect to criminal proceedings, and as a result, and as maintained by the Attorney General of Canada, anyone has the right to use French or English in the course of such proceedings.
In the second half of the judgment rendered on November 27, 1987, the Court of Appeal decided that Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal Code, which gives an accused the specific right to be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who speak his or her official language, was not yet in force in Alberta. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the mechanism adopted in 1978 to provide for gradual implementation of this section violated equality rights provided under the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.
As Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada has actively pursued consultations with the provinces to ensure that Part X1V.1 will come into effect throughout the country. Furthermore, as indicated by the Prime Minister, Bill C-72, the proposed Official Languages Act tabled by the Minister of Justice in the House on June 25, 1987, will amend the Criminal Code to clarify and consolidate language of trial rights and ensure that Part XIV.1 comes into force no later than January 1, 1990 in all provinces across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we do more than talk-we act!


LABOUR RELATIONS-AIR CANADA STRIKE-SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF WORK STOPPAGE
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 I raised a question with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) with respect to the settlement of the Air Canada strike. That strike being settled notwithstanding, I wish to return to the subject because of the wide implications that strikes and lock-outs have for the consumers of Canada as well as for labour and management.
Very frequently we think the only parties to a labour dispute are the employers and the employees, but the people very often most affected by a work stoppage are members of the consuming public. Think of the strikes we have had in the past 12 months in Canada which have had a direct bearing upon customers, members of the public. There was the police strike in Saint John, New Brunswick, the teachers' strike in Metropolitan Toronto, the Canada Post strike across the nation, the strike in Prince Rupert which closed the grain terminal and has brought a great loss to the farmers of western Canada.
I quote from a newspaper report concerning the impact of the Canada Post strike on small businesses. The writer said "Small firms, always the most vulnerable during economic disruptions, are starting to feel the pinch from the three week old postal dispute".
Over and over again we are aware that a strike or lock-out not only hits hard the people on the picket line or in the offices of the companies involved, it hits hard the people who are depending upon the flow of supplies and services, the people who are the members of the consuming public and have some right to be served, a right that is often denied them by the two participants in the dispute.
Tonight I raise the questions: who looks after the consuming public? Who cares about the customer? Who cares about the member of the public who has apparently no rights at all in a labour dispute except the right to wait passively and independently for two other parties to settle a dispute that so profoundly affects his or her life? It seems to me that it is time for Governments to take this very seriously. If they do not speak up and act on behalf of the consuming public, who will?
January 18, 1988

I would urge the Governments of Canada to consider very seriously a conference involving both the Canadian Government and the provinces together with representatives of management and labour so that there could be some consensus built for an alternative to the strike as the ultimate weapon. 1 say that the strike is now out of date. There are much better alternatives. Some of them have been tried in other countries. There are labour courts and various forms of arbitration. All these deserve some further and more serious consideration within Canada so that justice can be done for people who have so long been denied it and who have a right to be heard. I plead with the Parliament of this land to hear their plea and to act for them. If we do not, who will?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. Although it pertains to the dispute between Air Canada and its machinists which, as we are aware, was settled last December, the part of the Hon. Member's question having to do with the inconvenience to travelling consumers as a result of the shut-down of Air Canada operations is still very pertinent.
This was a dispute in which the consumer, the travelling public in this case, had no say in the issues or the actions of either party to the negotiations. Yet the consumer was very seriously inconvenienced by the shut-down of the airline, which happened at a time of great importance to travellers and their families. Appointing a mediator to help guide the parties to a timely and early settlement yielded the results the Government was looking for and proved to be the most effective course of action.
The Hon. Member is aware that our collective bargaining system has been vital to the economic and social progress enjoyed by Canadians. It is an adversarial system and, as such, labour-management disputes will occur. The vast majority of collective agreement negotiations in Canada are concluded without work stoppages and without government intervention. I want to assure the Hon. Member that where consumers are affected or threatened by industrial conflict, the Government will take appropriate and decisive action to resolve the conflict and maintain industrial peace, as we did with the Air Canada strike.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-MONTREAL EAST-LOSS
[Stage Direction]
OF JOBS AT CANADIAN VICKERS/REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, once again 1 rise concerning an answer I received from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in November 1986, and the matter still is the problems and difficulties experienced by the people of Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, at that time I told the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion what were the difficulties and how the Government could react quickly to avoid a haemorrhage and continuing job losses as a consequence of business close-downs.
Adjournment Debate
We set up at that time, with the people of Montreal East, the representatives of employees, the political representatives of either municipal or provincial levels and from all political leanings, and myself with my colleagues at the federal level- Back then, in 1985, Bombardier employed 450 people, Canadian Steel Wheel employed 250, Canadian Steel Foundries 300, Vickers 650, Daoust-Lalonde 100. La Parisette had 100 employees; SKD Technology, 170; the Gulf Refinery, 450.
SIS)
Right now, Mr. Speaker-on Friday all elected representatives, unions and management of Montreal East sounded the alarm, made an urgent call to the Government to act, and the situation is as follows: pressures were made and succeeded in convincing the Government to help Bombardier, to secure a contract for the construction of fifty locomotives. Four hundred and fifty jobs will be saved. But at Canadian Steel Wheel, sixty-five jobs out of 250 will remain. At Canadian Steel Foundries, 125 jobs out of 300 will be left. Vickers has completely shut down because of the decision of the federal Government to destroy Quebec shipyards. Daoust-Lalonde: out of business. La Parisette: out of business. SKD: out of business. Gulf Refinery: thanks to the Quebec Government, to Mr. John Ciaccia, 250 jobs have been saved.
In addition, we learned that morning that Angus had eliminated 30 positions, which meant a loss of 30 jobs in the East, and the CIP announced 200 lay-offs Friday following the plant close-down. According to the report of the Pichette Committee, there are now 22,000 unemployed and 10,000 welfare recipients in East Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, today, during the Oral Question Period, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) replied with statistics and bragged about Government achievements, but the people of East Montreal are in an unfortunate situation. If people representing various political ideologies at the provincial level, such as the Parti Quebecois and the Liberal Party, as well as representatives of the various labour federations, which normally do not see eye to eye, decided to meet on Friday, it is because the problem is urgent.
I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what we are asking, and I trust that she will reply to me. What all the people of East Montreal want is an investment of $50 million, $25 million from the federal Government and $25 million from the provincial Government, to create a business restructuration and modernization assistance office. This is urgent, Mr. Speaker. If it had been done when we first requested it six months or one year ago, these lay-offs and plant close downs could perhaps have been avoided.
We also ask for a special fund for on-the-job training. As businesses modernize and change, we need money to train people who are now employed and to help those who are unemployed to adjust.

January 18, 1988
Adjournment Debate
In view of the large number of older workers, it is also important for the Government to revive the labour adjustment program, which provided for pre-retirement benefits in the textile and footwear industry, and to designate East Montreal as the Liberals did for outlying regions when there were problems in the asbestos industry, for instance. We also ask the Government to take other types of initiatives, such as a net employment tax credit for businesses offering jobs in East Montreal, as well as training and job entry programs to help new businesses provide employment in that sector. The Government should help such new businesses to train their workers.
In closing, we also ask that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) speed up the process to bring the Soligaz project forward in East Montreal.
Again, Mr. Speaker, these people have had four or five sessions with spokesmen for the federal Government, not to mention twelve-odd meetings, press conferences and demonstrations. Sad to say, I think the Conservative Government is not really concerned about the needs of Montreal East and the greater Montreal region. As you may recall, our representations finally got the Government to appoint a ministerial committee, the Picard Committee, the Pichette Committee, more committees and studies, and during all that time jobs were disappearing and the poor workers were being penalized. Now we have the "Bouchard Act" which amounts to discrimination against older workers and cutbacks in unemployment benefits. All the people I mentioned are losing their jobs, like the Vickers workers who will be laid off next week and who will be penalized because they will be denied benefits and the contributions they made to their pension plan. They will not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has some good news to announce, not only statistics indicating more jobs were created in the western and northern regions of Montreal. What these people want to know once and for all is what is going to be done to help needy Montreal East residents.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) must be delighted to sit in opposition today and to be able to speak for and on behalf of the workers of Montreal East, because at the time he was a government member and
could speak out on their behalf, he never said a word. He was a famous nonentity. Mr. Speaker, need 1 remind the House that this Conservative Government has inherited this lack of leadership from the Liberals and that it is now really trying to do something. I suggest it has already done something. There are good news; good news indeed! The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) mentioned some good news for Montreal East today during the Oral Question Period.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has failed to mention, anxious as he is to politicise the issue, that as recently as January, the government had awarded to the Bombardier firm a contract worth over $100 million for the construction of 50 diesel electric locomotives. The Hon. Member has mentionned Bombardier. We have replied to that. He did not mention for instance that this contract will create directly over a two year period the equivalent of over 2,000 person-years of full employment and improve the position of this company on international markets.
He has also failed to mention, which is understandable, that the government announced in December a federal contribution of $9.6 million to the Societe petrochimique Kemtec to build a paraxylene and cumene treatment plan. Mr. Speaker, this project is good news indeed for Montreal East. To date, the government has helped develop some 76 projects in Montreal East, bringing private and public investments in this area to a total of $295 million. I suggest this is good news. If the Hon. Member wants to have more, he should listen. In Montreal East, the Federal Government has created over 2,500 new jobs and maintained 2,500 existing ones.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have done what we had to do, that is continue to help the people of Montreal East, an area which is indeed badly underprivileged and which is on the way to regain the place it deserves, and I am sure that the Hon. Member will recognize with the House that the conservative government has reacted positively, and I am sure and 1 can guarantee that we will continue to see to it that the workers of Montreal East continue to have jobs, stable jobs, permanent jobs, Mr. Speaker.


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 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, January 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers