1988-03-18

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to act in matters of interest to the region of Greater Montreal, including the space agency, the development of the Vieux-Port, the planning and development of Montreal Harbour, the Soligaz project, the shipyards and the economic renewal of East Montreal as well as the economic deterioration of the southwestern part of the region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recall why today, we in the Liberal Party move this motion to condemn a Government that has been in power for three and half years, a motion that concerns matters of interest to Montreal, the main urban centre of Quebec and one of the major urban centres in this country. Why has the number of issues outstanding increased to the point that today, we moved a motion condemning the Government? We must remember that after the election in 1984, following the many promises made by this Government to the people of Montreal, the municipal authorities and Quebecers as a whole, that in 1985, despite strong representation consisting of fifty-six or fifty-seven Members, including eight Conservative Members on Montreal Island, the business community started to complain.
The business community was disappointed because they found there was no one, no Members with enough clout to defend the interests of the Montreal community. Right away, both employers and employees, sensing they had no one to defend their interests, turned to the Opposition. This started in Montreal East. When representatives of employees at Bombardier, Vickers and Gulf, where shutdowns were a very real threat, realized they were not getting satisfactory answers from Conservative Members, they went to see the Opposition Members in the Liberal Party, in their search for ways to make themselves heard, to defend their cause, save jobs and save the economy.
Right away, on November 15, we in the Liberal Party set up a survival committee. Considering the gravity of the situation in Montreal East at the time with eight companies that were about to close down, which would result in the direct loss of 2,400 jobs and the loss of 5,000 jobs indirectly at the request of my colleagues from Papineau and Laval-des-Rapides (Messrs. Ouellet and Garneau), I set up this survival committee for Montreal East, including as members all socio-economic and even political intervenors representing government at the provincial and municipal levels, in order to put pressure on the federal Government so that it would act and respond to expectations and needs and deal with the emergency situation facing these people who were about to lose their jobs.
Under this kind of pressure exerted as much by the Montreal business community as by federal, provincial and municipal political interests, not to mention the very strong Montreal East concertation group, at long last the Conservative Government-and the Prime Minister, of course-realizes it is in a very difficult situation and that nobody is adequately prepared to defend the interests of the Montreal region. And so, on December 5, the Prime Minister announces his decision to strike a Cabinet committee whose members will study and prepare the economic revival of Greater Montreal. Listen now, make a note of the people who were selected for the Cabinet committee, and I quote the article published in Le Devoir after the Prime Minister's Office issued its release:
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), the then Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the then Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette), and two Ministers from the Island of Montreal, Mrs. Suzanne Blais-Grenier, then Minister of State (Transport), and Mr. Robert Layton, Minister of State (Mines).
If you check the list you will see that four of them went their separate way, four of them simply took off: Mr. Layton, the former Minister of State (Mines), as he is referred to in the release, was downgraded: the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) who was Minister of State (Transport) was also given a pink slip; and of course we all know the whereabouts of the ex-Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonette). Consider all these people and you have a fair idea of the consequences.
The day after, the present Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) lifts the wrap off the new Consultative Committee on the Development of the Montreal Region

March 18, 1988
Supply
headed by Mr. Picard. The committee is made up of people from different fields-management, labour unions, and spokesmen for the municipal, provincial and federal administrations-who will examine the file, because the Conservatives have just come down to earth and they simply do not know what Montreal needs. Bear in mind the many generous promises which had been made by the Prime Minister; he had said Montreal would become the international city. All at once he realizes what he had promised-he did not really know what he had been saying-so he comes up with a Cabinet committee and the Picard Committee.
To put matters in their proper context, I would like to remind the House of the issues which were urgent at the time and of the reasons why the Picard Committee was created. In addition, the Pichette Committee was created and examined many problems in Montreal East. All this occurred in 1985.
Let us look at all the problems one by one. In Montreal East, in November 1985, Bombardier was threatening to close down and we also witnessed the closing of Canadian Steel Wheel, Canadian Steel Foundries, Vickers, Daoust-Lalonde, La Parisette, SKD and the Gulf refinery. We also remember all that happened at the time, including the divisions within the Conservative Party, including a resignation, over the Gulf refinery issue. Each time, the Survival Committee organized meetings. People came to demonstrate on Parliament Hill. Representatives of Bombardier, Vickers, and Gulf employees met, in Ottawa and in Montreal, either the Minister whom I referred to earlier, who was responsible for the Ministerial Committee, or the then Secretary of State, who is now Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), and each time, all they got were vague replies, but no concrete action from the federal Government.
Now, after three years of a hard-fought battle, the federal Government has decided to allow Ultramar to purchase the Gulf refinery and to close it down, even though Gaz Metropo-litain and other companies were willing to purchase the refinery and to keep it in operation. Let us be honest: I already know what the Tory Members are going to say: when you were the Government, there were two other refineries which had to close down and how come the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie ... There is a difference.
In the case of the SKD Company ... I am not blaming the Tory Members for a company that moved its head office or plant from one province to another because for the time being we have no way to stop that. If the Gulf Company had said: Look, I am closing my refinery here because I would rather operate the one in Ontario, we would have said, as we all disagreed at the time... and I remember that the Hon. Member for Mercier at the time was against the closing down of refineries, but there is no legislation to prevent that now, and it is the same in Quebec, there is no mechanism to stop a corporation from closing its facilities in Montreal and transferring them to Quebec city to ...
Often, in the textile industry, businesses close their plant in Montreal to move to the Eastern Townships. There is no legislation to prevent them from doing so, for it is a matter of internal economy. But then, in the case of the Gulf refinery it is different: first of all, the Federal Government asked Petro-Canada to buy everything, except in Quebec. That is serious. Moreover, there was a second opportunity to prevent the closing of the Gulf refinery, which did not exist in other areas before whereby, Ultramar being a foreign company-and the Government had changed what was called the FIRA and we now had Investment Canada-Ultramar, in fact is a British company which had to obtain the autorization of the Federal Government, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, to complete this transaction. We know at that time, that other corporations were willing to buy ... Therefore, if the Canadian Government had truly wanted to save the Gulf refinery, not only because of the loss of 450 jobs, but also for the refining capacity and the protection of consumers, they would have said no to this transaction and called on other prospective buyers or they could even have asked Petro-Canada to purchase and improve its refining system in Montreal East. No, we remember what happened. It was during the Christmas and New Year's recess.
The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Mr. Stevens, came to Montreal, and at the same time he announced what I must admit were good news about Petromont, which you had reason to welcome, Mr. Speaker, he announced the demise of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East without any Cabinet representatives from Quebec being present. The Conservative Government thought nothing would happen since it caught Montrealers and Quebecers by surprise. No way! A coalition to save the Gulf refinery was organized in no time. Even though that occurred during the holiday season, activities were co-ordinated and today, thanks not to the Conservative Government but to the Government of Quebec, the facilities of the Gulf refinery remain in place, 250 workers have returned to their jobs and there is hope for the Montreal East refinery and the petro-chemical industry.
But in the meantime, unfortunately, a Minister resigned, whether that was the reason or she was on the verge of dismissal before that, but anyway a Minister said she was resigning because her government made an uninformed decision. A Conservative Member, the Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin), switched parties on that issue. And internal conflicts divided Conservative members on the issue of the Gulf refinery.
The result, today: I owe thanks to the Minister of Energy of Quebec, John Caccia, and congratulations to people such as Serge Baril, Luc Chouinard and M. Tremblay who never stopped fighting to save those workers' jobs.
What about other corporations? Namely, Bombardier and Vickers. Those people in Bombardier... further to our initiatives at the consultation table, we succeeded in getting contracts for New York subway trains-this saved jobs. And
March 18, 1988

recently, again under pressure, we got a contract for 50 locomotives.
As a result, people in Montreal East today can be proud, and they deserve to be congratulated for the way they acted together, the way they closed ranks by rising above political partisanship-,both city concillors and MLA's and labour leaders, because at that consultation table, on that survival committee there were people from the CNMTU, the QFL and people in so-called shop unions that are usually competing among themselves. But on that survival committee, people showed solidarity.
Today, there is reason to rejoice after 25 months of work, the efforts of five Liberal MPs who acted on that matter, in a daily, constant way, pushing on Ministers in this House. There were my colleagues for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), as well as my colleagues for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) who lent us a hand and were regularly urging the Government, following up the matter, asking questions, doing research with Government departments.
With that stocktaking in Montreal East now, I say: Well done to the City of Montreal which announced $90 million over five years to modernize and develop the industrial base. I say: Well done to the Quebec Government which announced $105 million over three years, a large percentage of which is going not only toward corporate modernization but also toward the so-called workers' "employability".
The important thing to come out of Pichette Committee studies is that in Montreal East there were 22,000 unemployed, 12,000 welfare recipients. And if tomorrow a business were to be set up there, there is no certainty those people would get the jobs. Moreover, if circumstances changed the nature of a business so that it could no longer operate, there is no certainty that its employees could find jobs in another sector.
The Quebec Government provided financial support for manpower training and re-training programs, as employability of the workers is very important for Montreal East. As usual, we then were disappointed by the announcement of the federal Government. The sad thing is that, although they may try to fool the public, it just does not work.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion went to Montreal and met with the people involved to try to make them believe that he was announcing a subsidy of $210 million. However, it immediately became obvious that there was only $35 million in new money and that the rest would be spent over a five-year period.
It does no good to try to fool the people. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tried it with our senior citizens, but the Members opposite should now stop using this method since they have been found out.
Supply
Naturally, the Minister and the Conservative Members who attended the meeting got booed, because people expected more from the federal Government than a few crumbs and a measly $35 million. The Government and the Conservative Members from the Montreal region knew quite well that what was needed was the early retirement program.
This is what was needed in view of the fact the workers who demonstrated had been abandoned because of the lack of a purchasing policy for railway transport and the maritime industry.
I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is here. All this certainly happened because he had negotiated with the American Governement his famous so-called free trade agreement. The people of Montreal East are already footing the bill because there is no truly effective policy to ensure the survival of the industries. The people from Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel, Canadian La Forge are precisely those who demonstrated.
The result: last weekend, there was an article in La Presse entitled: "Les plaies majeures qui affectent Vest de Montreal" (The major ills plaguing Montreal East). In the end, Mr. Laurent Picard who was appointed to make a study, said the Conservative Government has written off not only Montreal East, but the whole city. The situation is very serious. I only have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I have all those other issues to deal with.
The shipyards: there again, promises from the Conservative Government, promises from the Minister responsible for the Quebec region to Minister Johnson. In exchange for deals with the shipyards, the Government promises to divide the frigates contract. More empty promises. The Government was fooled. Even the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) was quoted in a newspaper article as having said: "Not sharing the contract is unthinkable." The result is that we have been fooled on the frigates matter.
The Soligaz project is another one, which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) is holding up, and the Government of Quebec, the people from the East and the industry are waiting to hear about.
There is another sector in Montreal East... also the southwest. There are shutdowns there also, Mr. Speaker. Five businesses closed down, 2,000 jobs are lost. People are waiting for replies to their request of only $130,000 for a study on the issues concerning the southwest area of Montreal.
In the port of Montreal also there is plenty of work to do, and space is lacking. That is also due to the Government's delay or inaction.
Another promise: The Government and the Prime Minister promised a real International Banking Centre that was going to be a revolution. All we have is a night deposit system to accommodate the person who just came from Mexico and spends the night in a Montreal hotel. Another masquerade!

March 18, 1988
Supply
Let us talk now about the Old Port of Montreal. The Liberal Government had acted on this issue. All the other cities in Quebec, in Canada, received money. We want $130 million. The delays in these matters are again due to the incompetence and inaction of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret). We want $130 million, Mr. Speaker, and once again we get nothing.
The scandal on the space agency is out of this world! It is worse than anything, ever. First, ministers are contradicting one another. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was contradicted by his Prime Minister, and you can see clearly in the newspapers reports, Mr. Speaker. I am running out of time. I could go on and on all afternoon, but my colleagues the Hon. Members for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will take over.
Michel Vastel has clearly shown in his article that this Government has totally abandoned Montreal, because of the low calibre of those who represent that area in the Conservative caucus and in Cabinet. He calls them lackeys. Mayor Dore is furious, Mr. Macdonald, the Minister, says he is fed up with those people who are wasting his time.
Mr. Speaker, where are we today after three years-and 1 see that my time is up-three Hon. Members, three ministers, have been thrown out of the ministerial committee, chaired by the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, for a variety of reasons-there is nothing left there, Mr. Speaker. Nothing is being done for Montreal. I know that the minister will be giving me numbers, statistics and the like. The jobs created were not of his doing. He is going to come and tell us stories ("tataouinage"). We know all about storytellers! Once again, he is going to pull the wool over our eyes. We have seen it before. People are tired of being taken for a ride, Mr. Speaker.
The best thing that the minister responsible for the Greater Montreal area could announce today is his resignation, considering how he has failed. The Government deserves to be blamed, but the minister responsible for the Montreal area, the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, should resign on account of his failure over the past three years.
Mir. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the speech made by the Hon. Member. He has made many criticisms but we also want to criticize certains points raised in his motion. I would like to put to him the following question: Had the Hon. Member been able to develop a strategy for Montreal East and for the economy of the south-western area, what would he have done? He referred at length to closures. He also dealt at length with the lack of government policy, but what is the policy of the Liberal party for Montreal East.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. With respect to Montreal East, as a policy, contrary to the Tories, we did not try to mislead the people. And our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) met
the citizens of Montreal East, as well as representatives of industries and unions who are not necessarily Liberals. He was not booed, contrary to the Minister when he met those people, and the commitment of the Liberal Party to Montreal East is quite clear. It was first a commitment to inject $50 million of new money, with no tricks such as those played by the Minister. What is more important, the Leader of the Opposition announced what we call the Older Citizens' adjustment Program or what is currently known as pre-retirement.
However a still more important arrangement... The Hon. Member gives me an opportunity to say that during the next weekend, we will hold a symposium and I think that the Liberal members of Montreal East have shown that we could sit down with the people involved and find the necessary funds. This is what we did. We worked in co-operation with civic and provincial authorities. We should not forget that those people have different allegiances. With an elected Liberal Government, our caucus would have a very strong group of Liberal Members representing Montreal East. As a matter of fact, we are considering a resolution calling on a Liberal caucus to meet every month to examine the situation in Montreal East, and once a year, to meet with all social and economic interests, to follow up on that situation and engage in some action. But the problem with regional development policies is that they are not applicable to large urban centers. And that is why we would want some mechanism to have a whole range of economic regional development programs made available to large as well as smaller centers in case of a disaster such as the one that occured in Montreal East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a question or comment.


Mr. Prud'homme:: First let me pay tribute to my colleague who constantly harasses the Government and rightly so, because of his great concern that we all share in Montreal, and because of his social awareness of the problems of Montreal East that he knows so well. He has experienced these problems and he knows what he is talking about. He is always welcome in Montreal East. He is concerned for the people over there, but probably due to the short period of time that he was allowed he could only give an overview of the problems that face Montreal East.
I know that he would have liked to detail further the main problems of Montreal and Montreal East. I wish to add a comment and ask him a question on a subject he is very well acquainted with. He did not mention, because of the little time available to him, the matter of the frigates, but I, and the other Members who will talk this afternoon, the NDP Members, would like to hear his views on that subject because, as they say in Montreal East he calls a spade, a spade. He is well known for that. He used the word tataouinage, and in Quebec we know exactly what it means ... I do not know how it is going to be translated, I would like to know. Perhaps my colleague will tell me. He does not beat around the bush, and that is what people like about him. I would appreciate it, if he
March 18, 1988

could give us some explanations, in a language so familiar to him and so readily understood by desperate people. If my colleague could comment on that, we would have a better understanding of the situation.
Mir. Malepart: I thank the Eton. Member for reminding me of the issue of shipyards where the failure to take concrete actions and to share jobs led to the closure of the refinery, the Vickers company in Montreal, the Sorel shipyard which is going down the tubes and the one in Lauzon. The Elon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) didn't do anything on that issue and people will remember. People will also remember the New Democratic Party's attitude on that issue. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) went to Quebec City-and I am warning Prime Minister Mulroney that we do not want more Charlie Browns-to try and delude Quebec City and Montreal residents into believing that if a New Democratic Government was elected tomorrow, they would split the frigate contract and give Quebec its share. If that were true, I would say "Fine, he has the right to do it". Unfortunately, it was not, and that shows the same disease Brian Mulroney has. It was false, since the next day the New Democratic Party leader said so, stating that that was not what they would do.


Mr. Cassidy:: This is the Liberal position.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Liberal position is clear ...


Mrs. Mailly:: I think you are rude.


Jean-Claude Malépart: The frigates went to New Brunswick whereas we would have shared the contract. Now, there are tenders regarding the destroyers and we believe that both must be awarded to the Province of Quebec. We would never lie to anyone. We told the whole truth to the people of Montreal East. When we set up the Survival Committee we said that we were going to help out this or that firm but we were not hypocritical. The six frigates will be built in St. John, and, Mr. Speaker, Quebec should get both TRUMP class destroyers. And I hope, contrary to the Hon. Member, that his leader will bring him back in line, since we have not seen him touch that issue again. Concerning the space agency, I find it strange that the New Democrats do not stand up. I would like the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to tell us he wants the space agency in Montreal.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I must say that what I wish, Mr. Speaker...


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Sit down!


Marcel Prud'homme: I understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton is very excited, but I would ask him to calm down. From the beginning of this debate I hear him getting
Supply
excited. It is not him I want to talk about. I only wish that our loyal and competent stenographers have not taken down the less than flattering comments of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: I can repeat them if you wish.


Marcel Prud'homme: I think, Mr. Speaker, that if she is ready to repeat them, then I will have to do something I usually don't, that is teach our colleagues common politeness, something I rarely do. But the remark she made about the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte- Marie (Mr. Malepart) who, it is true-


Claudy Mailly: It's easy!


Marcel Prud'homme: -may fill the television screen more than others, I think he agrees on that, but the comments of the Hon. Member for Gatineau were certainly not acceptable in this House. And if they appear in Hansard, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that to call an Hon. Member a slob is certainly not a parliamentary remark but to add to that a physical connotation will certainly bring down the quality of debates we would like to see in this House. And I know that when the Hon. Member thinks about it, when she reads the blues, as they say, she will realize that this kind of remarks have no place when dealing with a very important subject. I understand she comes from Gatineau, but she should realize that Montreal, and I'll tell her....


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mally).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that I was born in the district represented by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). So, I could tell you a few things. I called him a big slob not because of his size but because of his colossal lack of courtesy. He called our Prime Minister by his first name. He called him Charlie Brown. I think that this kind of remark is far less parliamentary than calling him a slob, which only depicts his behaviour at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members not to use such words. I do not think they are acceptable in debate. I would ask the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) not to use the kind of words she just did concerning any Member of the House. I do not think statements of this kind contribute to the debate on either side.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret).


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the subject today is Montreal and I must say I was somewhat surprised by the remarks of the Hon.

March 18, 1988
Supply
Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on this Opposition day, particularly since this Government has done a lot more for Montreal than the previous administration ever did.
For starters, just what is Montreal? Montreal is more than a city. Montreal is more that a physical site. Montreal is a major geographic area. Montreal is an economic motor. Montreal is a cultural motor. Montreal is a place which is vital to Quebec and to the country as a whole. Montreal is an international, financial, high tech city where culture, the arts, tourism play an important part, a city where transportation not only played a significant role, but was at the very origin of its settlement. It is a manufacturing city, a design city. Although Greater Montreal is inhabited by three million people, it is a city which has retained the values of its roots, a city where the residents can enjoy a quality of life rarely found elsewhere in the world, a city where people talk to one another, communicate, converse honestly. It is a city which has suffered great hardships under the previous Government and I will go back to that later.
First of all, I should like to deal with Montreal as a whole. First, our accomplishments: the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie clearly indicated that I was going to quote statistics, and I would not want to disappoint him. Here are some statistics: in Montreal, the number of jobs increased by 114,000 between 1984 and 1987. By contrast, when we refer to the years 1980-1984, while the party of my honourable friend was in power, a net loss of 4,000 jobs was registered. The House will remember that the distinguished Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was a backbencher at the time. You would think that our friend was concerned then with the poor performance of his Government and that he was shouting angrily as he is doing now. Quite the contrary! During the three years from 1980 to 1983, while this economic and cultural heart of Quebec was experiencing such a significant slowing down, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie found the courage to deal with issues affecting Montreal's economy on three occasions only. Without being a mathematician, I can say that it was on an average of once a year. On the other hand, the remarks he was making were not likely to shake the very foundations of the House. But let us say no more!
Has the Government allowed the situation to deteriorate over the past few months? The answer is no! How could he explain the creation of 50,000 new jobs in Montreal over the past 12 months? Fet us take my department for example. Through its various programs, it has granted the Montreal region as a whole a total of nearly $533 million in financial assistance between September 1984 and January 1988. It is estimated that these projects will involve investments of over $2 billion and will directly help to create 19,000 jobs. That is what my Department has done in Montreal East.
Since September 1984, DRIE, through its programs and subsidiary agreements, has injected $39 million in the following federal ridings: Montreal-Sainte-Marie, surprising
as that may seem, and Gamelin, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Montreal-Mercier, Rosemont and Saint-Leonard-Anjou.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, despite the sporadic whining of the Opposition, things are really moving in Montreal. Projects are mushrooming.
Looking at my notes, I see that the federal Government helped to set up the departmental committee on the development of the region of Montreal, as well as the advisory committee on the development of the same region, and that many experts from my department were involved.
As far as financial commitments are concerned, perhaps I could name a few. Since 1984, Ottawa has allocated $61 million to the construction of the Biotechnology Research Institute and earmarked the modest sum of $104 million for the manufacture of F-18 aircraft.
Still in the aerospace industry, Pratt and Whitney was granted nearly $152 million. Spar Aerospace enjoyed financial support to the tune of $130 million and Canadair received $50 million.
These figures are certainly not neglible, and they reflect considerable effort and political will on the part of the Government to guarantee the economic survival of a region that is the motor of Quebec's economy and contributes very substantially to the economic development of the entire country. I almost forgot the $200 million that went to General Motors, in addition to the interest-free loan of $110 million for the same company. The announcement was made in March 1987, and as a result, the jobs of 3,500 workers on the assembly line in Boisbriand will be maintained over the long term.
I realize this is a lot of facts and figures, and that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) may find it difficult to accept the truth as such.
Mr. Speaker, I may say that the Opposition's charge is just as hard to swallow. Actually, I still find it hard to understand why this particular subject was chosen by our friends opposite for their Opposition day.
One wonders about their sense of timing, especially since on February 24, which is certainly not very long ago, we announced a new federal program for the industrial renewal of Montreal East. That program will bring about capital outlays of $275 million in Montreal East in the next five years. The Hon. Member was away. Nothing was said about that.
Mr. Speaker, where was the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie when, for instance, it was announced that the Dickson Street Bombardier plant, in Montreal East, was awarded a contract allowing it to provide more than 2,000 fulltime jobs, because the federal Government had made $100 million available to the Government of Nigeria to help them purchase 50 locomotives?
March 18, 1988

Our Government arranged the signing of another deal with the Federal Republic of Germany and France for the production of a new reconnaissance system. That contract, Mr. Speaker, will generate for Canada more than $800 million in sales and will allow Canadair to create close to 300 jobs and their Canadian subcontractors 130 additional jobs. Where was the Eton. Member then?
Has he forgotten the $12 million contribution the Government of Canada made to the Montreal East Kemtec corporation?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals abandoned to stagnation an industrial center that was vital to the economic life of Quebec. The Liberal Minister of Finance at that time made it his duty to shut down Petromont. The Liberals practically killed then the petro-chemical industry in the Montreal area. Where was the Hon. Member when companies such as BP, Esso, Texaco appealed to the Government then in office to assist in saving thousands of jobs? Where was he?


Michael Morris Cassidy: He did not speak up, he said nothing.


Robert René de Cotret: The $100 million the present Government granted Petromont of Varennes for modernization will allow the company to maintain 400 jobs.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not one Liberal from Montreal spoke up: nothing came from them.


Robert René de Cotret: But since our voluble colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie accused us of doing nothing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind him of some of our most significant accomplishments in supporting Montreal's own role as a business metropolis. Those decisions were not indeed taken without reasons, and I will come back to that in a moment, with your permission. Those initiatives responded to the report of the Committee for Economic and Job Renewal in Montreal East, the so-called CREEM. I would also like to emphasize the role of Labour Canada, whose Senior Workers Adjustment Program will be of serious help to men and women in Montreal East who otherwise would have very little hope of reentering the job market. That three-year program will be funded at the tune of $125 million over that period.
To complement those employment efforts, Canada Employment and Immigration also did its part after CREEM's report was tabled. A special retraining committee was established to help former Montreal East workers retrain.
Finally, I would like to mention the Federal Development Bank's contribution: 480 loans, all in eastern Montreal, for a total of $125 million.
Speaking of banking, the Hon. Member earlier mentioned our position on banking centres. I would simply like to remind him, in order to bring him back to reality, of the Liberal position which was published in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and I am quoting from the Liberal position:
Supply
"We do not favour the concept of banking centres since they are divisive and ineffectual".

"We do not favour the concept of banking centres since they are divisive and ineffectual."
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when they suggest we came short of what was needed and that party's position provides for this or that, I ask myself: Well, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada?
If you think that Montreal East alone is facing economic difficulty, I am sorry, and the term is well chosen, I have to set the record straight. We can look at south-western Montreal for instance where the situation has been deteriorating since well before 1984. Again, this is a deep-rooted problem, a deep-set one, but we are actively dealing with it. And in order to actively deal with such a problem, we must have the participation, the commitment of people in the community. Mechanisms have been set up. The solutions will come out of the will of people in the community.
For the information of my sharp-tongued but short-memoried colleagues, Mr. Speaker, let me add that the committee is made up of representatives from employers, labour unions, community groups and the various levels of Government. If we want long-term solutions, it is essential that the Committee include proper representation from the community.
Such work involves a lot of hard thinking and its results are obviously difficult to discern in the short term. It is not as spectacular as announcing a $50 million subsidy which could extend the life of a company by a year or two. What we are trying to do is something structural and long-lasting which will be more beneficial to the community than the half-baked programs of the former Government.
I am certain that the work of the Southwest Montreal Recovery Comittee, for instance, will lead to results and solutions which will bring this underprivileged region out of its stagnation once and for all.
In its great wisdom, the Opposition has also accused us of being reluctant to implement the recommendations of the Picard Report, also known as the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Development of the Montreal Region. I wish to point out that there were 76 recommendations in that report and that we accepted 71 of them and have alreay taken action on 11. If we and our partners at the other Government levels are successful, this will bring about investments of between $200 and $250 million.
This is not rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. These are facts. Those figures are real. The Government has already acted on the Picard Report. Other developments in the Montreal region are also being discussed.

March 18, 1988
Let us talk about the Patent Bill, which will stimulate research, attract major investments to Canada and bring about development in a high technology industry. This will be of enormous benefit to the Montreal region since, as we all know, the Montreal region has the most potential as far as pharmaceutical research is concerned.
This Bill generated strong emotion and a lot of comments. Mr. Speaker, I would like someone to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie where he was when he should have been expressing his deep beliefs, or even better, his solidarity with his Liberal colleagues. My respected colleague certainly abstained from the five votes on Bill C-22. This man, who likes to denounce the lack of courage of the Government, was himself unable to stand up for or against this important piece of legislation.
I should add that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was certainly not alone in abstaining, as twice as many Quebec Liberal Members, who keep saying that they have the interests of their own province at heart, abstained than voted against Bill C-22. We may discover the explanation of their behaviour one day. However, for the moment, I must deal with much more pressing issues.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is now time to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister still has two minutes. Does the House allow the Minister to complete his speech in two minutes?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Minister has only two minutes left but we are entitled after Question Period to a 10-minute period of questions and comments. If the Minister cannot remain in the House, it would be disastrous for us because we would like to ask him some questions. Then, why does he not take his two minutes now and it would be easier for him when the House resumes the debate at 12 or 12.05 to carry on, because we would like to ask him questions and we are not sure that he will be here.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is already 11 o'clock, there is no problem and I will be here to answer questions as long as my colleagues want to put some to me. I should like to have my two minutes to draw a short conclusion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No, he can carry on after resumption of government orders.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Statements by members.The
Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, at noon, some 700 Public Service language teachers will be demonstrating right here on Parliament Hill, to show their frustration with the Conservative Government that leaves its employees without a collective agreement for more than two years. That situation, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely unacceptable. So much so since the Conservative Government proposes to reduce working conditions of Public Service language teachers.
In fact, the Government wants to eliminate the preparation time that is absolutely necessary to all teachers, including Public Service language teachers. Besides, there is a precedent elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, and Public Service language teachers should keep their acquired rights. I am urging the responsible Minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazan-kowski), to go out at noon and to address those militants, those workers, and to undertake to recognize the rights of Public Service language teachers.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, two out of every three Canadians receive their drinking water from the Great Lakes. The Lakes also support economic activity that accounts for one half of the Gross National Product of our entire country. They are, in fact, one of the most important economic and environmental areas in North America.
Because of their importance, Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978 to help clean up pollution in the system. Thanks to the efforts of the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), amendments to that agreement have been made which will make the clean-up more effective.
Specific targets and goals for decreasing pollution in the Lakes have been set, and both countries will be involved in identifying toxics in the water and developing new techniques to remove them. The agreement will also be more effective in reducing the flow of dangerous pollutants into the water and in implementing new anti-pollution regulations.
The new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, together with a new federal water policy, are giving Canadians the



March 18, 1988

assurance they deserve that their environment is clean and safe.



IMMIGRATION


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, a most distressing situation is likely to occur in Montreal on Sunday, when 40 people who entered Canada in good faith and who took advantage of a bad publicity to settle in Montreal... but I do not want to deal with the substance of the issue. But when I see that Kathleen Verdon, a member of the Executive Committee of the City of Montreal, has sent a telegram to the Minister, and that Gerald LeBlanc, from La Presse, one of our most serious journalists, has stated that, unfortunately in its attempt to remedy a bad situation, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) is about to create one which is even worse. Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country which welcomes immigrants and which-I will readily admit-is faced with a difficult situation because some people entered this country through different means, although now quite well integrated to the Quebec society, the Montreal society, and whose children as we saw yesterday are very well integrated to the French schools and who, together with their young friends with deeper Quebec roots, are already asking: Mr. Speaker, I beg of you, the law exists, it is true, but you are a compassionate man and you should use your powers, the powers you have to end this situation on compassionate grounds and to prevent that, on Sunday, Canada's image be injured.
I therefore ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to use his powers, as his predecessors have always done, to make an exception and to at least postpone the deportation of these people until a proper solution can be found.



SCARBOROUGH WEST


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the federal constituency of Scarborough West extends from Victoria Park Avenue along Eglinton Avenue East south to Lake Ontario and back to Victoria Park. Although it contains Scarborough's famous Golden Mile of Industry, it is dominantly residential. Its most dominant geographical feature is the celebrated and beautiful Scarborough Bluffs but its greatest asset is its people, represented
today on Parliament Hill by almost 50 members of the Scarborough West Progressive Conservative Association.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as in the United Kingdom, the people of the United States are taking another look at the irradiation of food.
Leading educators, scientists, doctors, church leaders and environmentalists held a national news conference in Washington March 15. I am happy to remark that Canadians, through Food Chain and the Canadian Coalition to Stop Food Irradiation, were co-sponsors. The groups made several demands: stop the irradiation of grains, fruits, vegetables, pork and spices, and halt the pending approval in poultry; make full environmental impact statements before new construction of facilities, and redirect the $5 million from promotion and construction to safety.
I understand that soon to be irradiated Washington State apples could find their way into British Columbia. Since there are no detection tests or labelling requirements, how are Canadians to know if their apples are irradiated? Canadians have a right to know.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the last remaining wilderness area in Metropolitan Toronto could be ruined by the Ontario Government. The Rouge River Valley in Scarborough contains over 5,000 acres of natural beauty.
Despite its natural beauty and historical significance, despite the enjoyment thousands of people get from the area, the Government of Ontario is determined to develop the Rouge River into a subdivision.
Scarborough is one of the few cities in North America to combine economic development with environmental conservation successfully. That balance must not be upset.
I am proud to join with Scarborough City Council, the Save the Rouge Valley Organization, and thousands of concerned people all across Scarborough in urging the province not to develop the Rouge River Valley. A federal task force on

March 18, 1988
national parks has made a number of proposals for new park ideas. I urge the Ontario Minister of the Environment to work with the federal Minister and help save the Rouge for future generations of Canadians.



FISHERIES


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Government's own documents, saltwater sport fishing in British Columbia contributes over $600 million annually to the province's economy. More than 300,000 anglers fish in the tidal basins every year, and over half of those people fish for salmon.
I met earlier this week in Nanaimo with men and women from the South Georgia Strait whose livelihood comes from sport fishing. They are deeply disturbed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) who is, after all, a British Columbia Member of Parliament, cut back the annual limit for salmon for sport fishermen from 20 to 8 without adequate consultation. These British Columbians tell me that they have had difficulty getting the ear of the Minister and that the idea of spot closures without notice is completely unfair to them since they cannot operate their businesses if their businesses can be shut down at any time.
I have more than 100 representations that I will be forwarding to the Minister from people who know the importance of conservation, who know the importance of protecting our fish stocks because they make their living from them and who only expect to be treated in a fair manner, be given a fair hearing, and be able to operate from month to month and from year to year with some certainty.
I urge the Minister to listen to his fellow British Columbians.

[ Translation]



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Socialist Leader is always saying that his party has 250 possible candidates in Quebec. It's very strange. The biggest crowd he attracted during his trip to Central Quebec last week was 100 people in the constituency of Saint-Maurice, and the Leader maintains that it is a benchmark constituency. If this is the case, good for Canada!
There was only one candidate for the Socialist nomination in Saint-Maurice. There is only one candidate for the nomination
in Champlain. There is no candidate for the nomination in Trois-Rivieres.
The only message relayed by the Socialist Leader was: We are against the free trade deal but, if we are elected, we will negotiate it. On that issue as on the others, they have no position.
According to polls, Canadians like the Socialist Leader less. That's good and the more they get to know him, the less they will like him. That's good for everybody.



THE LATE SENATOR YVETTE ROUSSEAU

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian political life has lost a strong, principled voice in the passing of Senator Yvette Rousseau.
Madam Rousseau was a beautiful woman, not just in her charming and striking person, but her inner strength and conviction enhanced this natural beauty. Her keen interest in the advancement of fairness and equity for women, the working poor, the families and the elderly, in Canada, as well internationally, marked her active participation in the decision-making of Canada, as a volunteer, as a working woman, and as a Senator. Her contribution in these fields has improved the lives, not only of people in her favourite home territory of Sherbrooke, Quebec but, of people across this wonderful land.
I knew, admired, and loved this fine woman as a proud, strong mother, a loving and caring grandmother, and an open-minded and dignified Canadian nationalist with pride in her French roots. She was a true role model to me and she shall be sorely missed by all.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I knew Senator Rousseau also and I would like to express my sadness as well.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION REJECTING BELL CANADA RATE APPLICATION APPLAUDED

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission's decision to deny Bell Canada's so-called rate rebalancing application. I was pleased that NDP Members of Parliament, including my friends from Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and Thunder Bay

Atikokan (Mr. March 18, 1988

Angus), with the help of the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), and myself in Vancouver, were able to appear before the CRTC hearings.
The rejection of a local phone rate increase and the reduction in B.C. Tel and Bell long distance rates is a victory for Canadian consumers, at least for this year. However, I sharply disagree with some of the remarks made in the CRTC decision supporting rate rebalancing in principle. This is a very strong signal that Canadian consumers will not be so lucky the next time Bell applies for an increase in local phone rates.
Rate rebalancing is a bad deal for Canadian consumers. It involves a shift in costs from wealthier Canadians who make long distance calls to poorer Canadians who mainly make local calls, from larger to smaller businesses, and from businesses to consumers. I am proud that we in the NDP stood up for the average consumer in this matter and we certainly do not intend to be silent in the future.



CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I, who along with 48 of my caucus colleagues have been targeted by the postal union CUPW and the Canadian Labour Congress as the object of their hit squads, was deeply distressed by a recent report on the financial status of the CLC.
I turned on my TV the other day and there was NDP Vice President and Canadian Labour Congress Director Bob White advising the nation that CLC members should be more heartily taxed in order to help straighten out the financial conundrum they are in. Apparently, the Bob, Ed and Shirley team have determined that some of their activities have been a bit exorbitant lately and the old treasury has been taking a hammering.
Much to my horror, I find that I am one of the culprits responsible for this upsetting revelation, as this program to wipe out 49 MPs will prove to be a very costly venture. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, your reaction at having been invited to the circus only to find there was no money left for the popcorn?



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on plutonium overflights there was last week both good and bad
news. First, the good news. We were told that the U.S. will not transport plutonium over Canada. This is even better news for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who managed to waffle his way through this issue without taking a stand on the protection of the health of Canadians. For this, the Minister owes one to Secretary of State Shultz.
Now the bad news. The U.S. Government still intends to transport plutonium from Europe to Japan via a polar route north of Canadian territory. Plutonium released because of an accident could be dispersed over great distances, without respect for political boundaries. Therefore, the population is still at risk. It is thus absolutely essential that the Government of Canada urge Washington to drop the idea of transporting plutonium by air anywhere in the world.
The question now is, will the Minister of Transport take to heart this issue and at last make representations to the U.S. administration on behalf of the world community?



NANAIMO'S WORLD FAMOUS BATHTUB RACE


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, Nanaimo is known world-wide for having the cleanest politicians around. This is not only because of our outstanding moral fibre. Nanaimo is also the home of the famous bathtub race to Vancouver. Each July, hundreds of hearty souls climb into leaky "ships of fate" to win the Golden Plug, and each year the Canadian navy provides logistical support.
This year, however, the participation of the navy in the bathtub race is in doubt. The citizens of Nanaimo call upon the Department of National Defence to take part once again in tubbing, and to sail with those who bail. We would not want years of excellent public relations in the Nanaimo to Vancouver Bathtub Race to go down the drain for Canada's navy!



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a report recently made public assesses the status of female RCMP members. That survey of male and female officers in British Columbia concludes that some policies of the police force are instrumental in creating obstacles to women's careers. In addition, the report emphasizes that male members still harbour very negative attitudes toward their female colleagues.

March 18, 1988
Oral Questions

The RCMP Commissioner, however, when asked about this internal report, claimed that the problems women now face in the force are no different from the ones men must confront. This statement ignores the reality of women working in nontraditional occupations and in fact confirms one of the conclusions of the report, which is that traditional social norms and values and deeply ingrained sex-role images which predetermine many attitudes of male members, the public, and the female members themselves, are at the root of the unique difficulties women often experience.
When women are earning only 66 per cent of what men earn, when women are facing systemic discrimination in hiring and promotions, when women are dealing with sexual harassment and sexist attitudes on the job, it is irresponsible for the Commissioner to dismiss the concerns of women as employees, especially in light of the findings of this internal RCMP report.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Provincial Conservative leaders, especially Gary Filmon of Manitoba, continue to reject the concept of aboriginal self government.
When will the federal Government tell provincial leaders that this right is a right not contingent upon words, phrases, deals or financial obligations? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Conservative leader in Manitoba, or will he tell the Conservative leader of that province that aboriginal rights are rights that are recognized under our Constitution?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of aboriginal rights is clearly recognized in the Constitution of Canada. I do not think that the rights of aboriginal people are put into question.
The Government has already adopted a comprehensive claims policy which has been made public. We have made progress in that regard. The provinces know that this is a priority of the federal Government and we trust that we can make progress in the future with the provinces, knowing that these rights are indeed recognized in the Constitution of Canada.
[ Translation]


RESPECT FOR TREATIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in that case, how does the Minister explain the fact that the Government refused to recognize before the United Nations in Geneva that the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreements were a treaty?
Do the Minister and the Government not realize that Section 35(3) of the Canadian Constitution says that all agreements, past and present, arising from land claims are treaties?
Furthermore, does the Minister realize that the right to political autonomy is included in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition failed to do justice to the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to Canada's position.
Canada has never denied the existence of treaties with the aboriginal people of this country. In fact, the Secretary of State wanted to make it quite clear that Canada recognizes these as national treaties. The only difference, we said, is that these are not international treaties.
As for the recognition of these rights, the rights of aboriginal people are recognized in the amendment to the Constitution. I do not see what more could be added.
However, we must realize what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to deal with the issue of aboriginal rights with the co-operation of all parties concerned, and we believe that any progress which, I am sure, we all want, can only be achieved through collaboration and co-operation.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister says, the Government denied, before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, that the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreements were a treaty. That is a fact.
The Government continues to take the position that it is entirely in favour of aboriginal self government provided every detail can be worked out in advance with the provinces. However, Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution says that the aboriginal rights to self government are a constitutional right.
How can the Minister justify, on behalf of his colleague, the capping of the Post-secondary Education Assistance Program? How can he possibly justify cutting off legitimate aid to young aboriginal people who want to improve the leadership, the
March 18, 1988

status, and the livelihood of their people through college and university education? Let us get right home on that issue. How can he possibly justify that?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made it clear many times that there is no truth at all to the allegation that funds are being cut for post-secondary education. In fact, if the Right Hon. Member looks at the facts he will find that in this year, for example, including Bill C-31 funding, post-secondary education funding will go up to $130 million. That is an increase.
With regard to a cap, we have to live within a budget allocation. If we have $131 million for this fiscal year that is the amount of money we will spend.
In consultation with native leaders and band chiefs across Canada we are trying to find a formula which will meet the requirements of young Indians in Canada. The Right Hon. Member will acknowledge that we have made enormous progress in that field. I do not mean to say that everything is perfect. We are striving to do better with, I think, success.

Oral Questions
Quebec on replacing the export tax are continuing. I will report further to the House when I have the results of those negotiations.


INSISTENCE THAT MINISTER ACT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the Association des producteurs de bois de sciage as expressed in yesterday's press release. It says that the Canadian Government is dragging its feet and has not been able to finalize the negotiations. Quebec has raised the stumpage fees and forced the lumber companies to do forest improvement work but, despite all that, the 15 per cent tax remains in force and it seems that the Minister has finalized the process in British Columbia because it is her home province, but does not care for Quebec.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that this issue has been settled in five provinces where the softwood lumber tax has been replaced with provincial measures as the provinces wished. Again, we are continuing discussions with the Government of Quebec. The mood of the discussions is very cooperative and when we are able to conclude those negotiations I will so report to the House.


SOFTWOOD-REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF 15 PER CENT TAX
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, if I may have her attention. Yesterday, the Association des producteurs de bois de sciage du Quebec voiced its impatience at the slow pace of ongoing negotiations with the United States. Hon. Members will recall that some months ago, the Conservative Government decided not to appeal to the GATT tribunal the decision to impose a 15 per cent tax on lumber exports to the United States and that finally the Government itself imposed a tax on sawmills and embarked upon discussions with the Americans. I would like to ask the Minister when will the Government of Canada conclude the agreement which would do away with the 15 per cent tax, specially since the Quebec Government has increased stumpage fees. After having forced companies to upgrade their woodlots, the Government of Canada now seems to be letting the Americans once again dictate the policy which a provincial governement should follow in the area of natural resources.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member has the facts backwards. Quebec wanted to have the 15 per cent softwood tax imposed so that it would be able to adjust its stumpage and, therefore, manage its own resources. Negotiations with
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday President Reagan of the United States sent troops to Honduras. That action was contrary to the Canadian Government's official policy as expressed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In Vancouver, for example, the Prime Minister said at a conference of the Inter-American Press Association:
We do not approve of third party intervention anywhere in Central America whoever the third party may be and regardless of its legitimate interest in the area.

Given that policy, did the Canadian Government clearly inform the U.S. Government of its opposition to this intervention in Honduras?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the

March 18, 1988
Oral Questions
House yesterday that we would update the House on developments as we were so informed. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to say that our Ambassador is in Honduras and, although the situation is still very murky, there is a growing consensus that Nicaraguan forces did enter Honduras in force.
Whatever the case, there is a clear indication from our sources that there is a major Nicaraguan Government offensive against the Contra resistance. Our concern is that this is happening on the eve of cease-fire discussions which were due to take place on Monday.
Consequently, today we are calling in the American Ambassador and the Nicaraguan Ambassador to say that Canada has grave concerns that the actions which are taking place could undermine the peace effort which has involved so much commitment from so many people.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said was interesting and even factual in some respects, I suspect. However, it had absolutely nothing to do with the question. I hope the Minister who is filling in for the Secretary of State for External Affairs will listen to the question this time.


THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION
John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister of Canada, her boss, said the following:
We do not approve of third party intervention anywhere in Central America
whoever the third party may be and regardless of its legitimate interest in the
area.
The Prime Minister was clearly talking about the United States and the Soviet Union. We have a clear intervention in the affairs of Honduras or Nicaragua, whatever is going on in the border area between those two states, by one of the superpowers, namely, the United States.
Since it is her Government's policy that is being challenged by this action by President Reagan, will she please defend that policy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that the presence of the Americans in Honduras comes under the Rio Treaty, a bilateral arrangement. We are advised that the Government of Honduras asked for the presence of American support. That is the information we have been given.
Our concern is with the efforts to establish a peace plan for the area. That is where Canadian policy is centred. Our concern at present is that these events, whoever is responsible, will undermine a very important initiative which this Government fully supports.


CANADIAN POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I find the Minister's answer deeply disturbing. What is being asked today does not concern the details of incursions or alleged
incursions on either side of the Honduras-Nicaragua border. These are very important matters and all of us agree on the factual determination of that. An emergency debate is going to take place in the UN's Security Council which will address that. The question I am asking is about official Canadian policy.
Are we now to infer that the Government of Canada has changed its policy from what the Prime Minister said and, from our point of view, it is quite acceptable for the U.S. to escalate in a very significant way its military role in that region? Is the Minister now saying as well that if the Nicaraguan Government, and there is no evidence to indicate this, should invite the Soviet Union to send troops on their side, that super- power involvement is totally appropriate? If so, would she justify this abominable position?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that the Canadian position is to support the peace plan for the area. If the NDP thinks that it is an abominable position, that is their problem, not ours.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Premier Peckford stated yesterday in the Newfoundland House of Assembly that a clause in the Meech Lake Accord will lead to greater provincial jurisdiction, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador jurisdiction, over the fishery. The Minister knows that Canada's fish stocks are currently managed by the Government of Canada.
Does the Minister share Premier Peckford's interpretation of the Meech Lake agenda clause on the fishery? Specifically, is he ready to say to the House today that Ottawa is prepared to cede part of its constitutional jurisdiction in the fishery to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or, for that matter, to any other provincial Government?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very important question indeed. The spirit of the Meech Lake Accord is that the respective provincial and federal Governments should be willing to sit down from time to time and talk about matters of mutual interest and concern. In that spirit a clause was inserted in the Accord to the effect that, on a regular basis, First Ministers would review the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial Governments regarding the management and allocation of our fish stocks.
It is clearly understood by all provincial Governments that the Constitution of Canada recognizes the responsibility of the federal Government under the Fisheries Act for the management of the fishery. I see nothing wrong with sitting down
March 18, 1988

from time to time, as I do regularly, with my provincial colleagues to talk about the extent to which they offer advice and input on the management process. We have met over a dozen times in the past year and a half, and that kind of dialogue should continue. However, it is not my intention to suggest any ceding of ultimate responsibility by the federal Government for the fishery in this context.


INTERPRETATION OF ACCORD
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. He will know this issue is causing a great deal of consternation and concern in Atlantic Canada and, I suggest, British Columbia as well. On the one hand we have Premier Peckford claiming publicly that the clause will lead to Ottawa ceding jurisdiction over the fishery to provincial Governments, specifically Newfoundland. On the other hand, Premier Buchanan claims the clause is there merely to provide a mechanism for discussion at First Ministers' conferences once a year.
Will the Minister say clearly for the benefit of all Atlantic Canadians and all provinces what the intent is of the clause? Can he say clearly whether or not Premier Peckford's interpretation is correct?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, first, if I read the story in the press this morning, I would read that Mr. Peckford's position is that only Newfoundlanders should be able to fish off their coast. I should point out that is not a quotation of Mr. Peckford or any representative of his Government because that is not his position or that of his Government. For example, fishing vessels from Nova Scotia have for a long time fished on the Grand Banks, as have many foreign vessels which we are now eliminating from that fishery as a matter of government policy.
We are quite content to sit down and discuss these arrangements as reflected in the Meech Lake Accord, but I can tell the Hon. Member that the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries has at no time indicated to me any suggestion that management responsibility be taken from the federal Government. That is not the objective of the Province of Newfoundland. It is that we continue to discuss jointly and determine what is in the best interests of all Atlantic Canadians in the way in which the fishery is managed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Oral Questions
The Farmers for Peace project at Mancotel, Nicaragua, received $180,000 in CIDA funding as well as substantial funding from the Alberta Government and Canadian farmers themselves. Several times, most recently on March 1, this Canadian funded project has been attacked by U.S. funded Contras. Over time, 25 people have been killed, 40 wounded, others kidnapped, and $165,000 in damage has been done.
On Wednesday, Victor Julyan, treasurer of the Alberta based Farmers for Peace, was told by the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that a note of protest had been sent to Washington. Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm that at this time, but I will look into the matter and respond as soon as possible to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplementary.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT OPPOSE UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR CONTRA FORCES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, considering the destabilizing action of the U.S. Government in sending troops to Honduras, and considering the action of the Contras against Canadian funded projects, does the Minister not think it is time the Canadian Government stood up for Canadian funded development and opposed continued U.S. support for the Contras and continued U.S. efforts to destabilize that region?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that we consider the actions taking place in the region to be very unhelpful and destabilizing to the peace efforts. I have already told the House that Canada deeply regrets these activities and is worried that the negotiations scheduled between the Contras and the Nicaragua Government will be imperilled. I think that is-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is part of your trade deal, Pat. You are so frightened of the U.S.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has been asked, not just once but several times, serious questions on what is obviously, in view of the reaction of most Hon. Members in this place, a matter of great importance to us all. The Hon. Minister should be entitled to answer.


Mr. Heap:: She doesn't.


An Hon. Member:: Then don't ask the question.

March 18, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members should let the Hon. Minister at least complete her answer. If they do not think it is satisfactory, they can argue about it somewhere else.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the question in numerous forms and in various ways. I think it would not be useful to pursue it. As I told the House, we are calling in the ambassadors. We are expressing our concern. Our policy is to support the peace efforts in the region and I think all Canadians would back us in that policy.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY WELLAND CANAL-REPAIRS TO LOCK IN ST. CATHARINES
Allan Ernest Pietz: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The Welland Canal will be opening for the 1988 shipping season in a short 13 days. The Parliamentary Secretary will know, of course, that there is an ongoing major rehabilitation program for the locks on the canal. However, a few short days ago there was an unexpected collapse of an 85-foot section of an approach wall to Lock 1 in St. Catharines. This brings back memories of the problems we had two years ago with the blowout of Lock 7 which created an international shipping incident.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the repairs will be completed in time for the shipping season to begin on March 31 and that the shipping people can be assured of a successful canal this year?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the sudden collapse some weeks ago of the approach to Lock No. 1 certainly sent shivers through all shippers and carriers, as well as the Hon. Member for Welland. I am happy to say that the superintendent informed me this morning that the approach wall collapse has been corrected and all systems are go for the official opening on March 30 or March 31.
Hon. Members will recall as well the spring 1987 announcement of the seven-year $175 million modernization program, and 10 contracts this winter worth some $20 million. All systems are go.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Immigration).
We know that all Canadians warmly welcomed the lady who came from the Soviet Union, Tanya Sederova, a few months ago. We also know that a few days after her arrival her sponsorphip was called off in a rather difficult manner. She is now living on welfare in Canada and she was asked to file a new application concerning her immigrant status. Yesterday I learned from the Minister's office that it could take up to a year before Mrs. Sederova is given her resident status in Canada. Considering that some 30 Members of Parliament wrote to Mr. Gorbatchev asking him to allow her to come to Canada, would the Minister be ready to consider that case so that she does not have to wait a year before being granted resident status?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: wish to thank the Hon. Member for her question. I will ask for a briefing on this matter. I did not have the opportunity to consider it in the past few days, but I can assure her that I will look at the options and see if we could speed up the process.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW CASE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. He should be aware that, because of the breakdown in the sponsorship, Madam Sidorova has been told she could wait up to a year. She is on welfare. She cannot now collect the baby bonus for her Canadian child. Obviously, she would like to have the matter settled because she is hoping to attend university and try to get her life back in order. In order to do that, she has to have her approval by May. I would ask the Minister if he would at the earliest opportunity today review her case and ensure she is given the kind of humanitarian consideration she deserves after three years of waiting for Canadian status?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my other language, I will ask that my officials and my staff do a review of where the process might be. I have indicated clearly in this House on many occasions that I am deeply appreciative of the information brought forward by all Members of Parliament, and by other Canadians, and where there are opportunities available within the law we will see that we act in a most humane and compassionate fashion.


IMMIGRATION
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. A federal report has drawn attention to the irony that, on the one hand, large numbers of Canadian families seeking to adopt children must wait years for the
March 18, 1988

opportunity, while in other parts of the world extraordinary numbers of helpless and homeless children would welcome the great privilege of being taken into a Canadian family. In view of the report, will the Minister indicate what response the Government may make to the proposal that larger numbers of children from overseas be admitted for adoption? This proposal is obviously humanitarian in nature and potentially advantageous to Canada.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government does not become directly involved in the adoption process. Adoptions and the welfare of children are the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. The Government's role in international adoptions is confined to facilitating the child's admission to Canada while ensuring that the province in which he or she is to reside has no objection to the proposed arrangements for the reception of the child. We will continue to work actively with the provinces on this very important matter.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Prime Minister's close friend, Jean Sirois. Two days ago my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe, revealed to the House that the Prime Minister's friend Jean Sirois had received no less than $750,000 worth of salaries, benefits, legal contracts and so on.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm today that in addition to those fees, that gravy train of benefits, a company known as Datagram, having Maitre Jean Sirois as a director, received no less than $945,046 from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion? If so, will the Deputy Prime Minister now do what I asked him to do a few days ago and table a list of all the benefits that Maitre Jean Sirois has received since September 17, 1984?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegation referred to by the Hon. Member. I will certainly make inquiries and report back to him.


Don Boudria: All these allegations are in a press release issued by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion of this Government.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LIST
Don Boudria: My
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he prepared to commit himself today to table in this House a
Oral Questions
complete list of all the fees, benefits, salaries, expense accounts, and so forth, of all the federal monies given to Jean Sirois? Is he prepared to do that, yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is merely a repetition of the same question, only in the other official language.


Mr. Foster:: Will you table the list?


Mr. Speaker:: This is unusual, but the Minister for International Trade may want to add something of some importance in answer to a question that was asked of her earlier.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make one point clear in my answer to the Hon. Member for Oshawa, which, on reflection, I wasn't sure I did make clear. I want to ensure that the House knows that it is the American Ambassador and the Nicaraguan Ambassador we have called in for discussions on the events which are taking place in Central America.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the fact that for the first time in four years the Canadian dollar has risen to over 80 cents U.S., an increase of over three cents since the trade deal was signed. Also, yesterday, Bank of Canada interest rates rose once again.
Is the Minister aware that the combination of high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar will hurt investors, hurt consumers, and hurt exports, therefore having a negative impact on jobs? Is the Government prepared to intervene with the Bank of Canada to ease up on its high interest rate policy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member asks that question he should also reflect on the strength of the economy and what is causing the increase in the dollar and the increase in interest rates.

March 18, 1988
Oral Questions
We saw in the last quarter of 1987 the strongest quarter of growth that we experienced during 1987. We have seen job creation continue into 1988 at a very strong level-95,000 jobs have been created. Investment intentions for 1988 are up 17.3 per cent.
This activity, this strength in the economy, is being felt in many parts of Canada. This is what is being reflected in the strength of the Canadian dollar and the pressures that are there on interest rates.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-JOB CREATION PROJECTIONS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that any advantages gained by a 3 per cent to a 4 per cent reduction in tariffs will be more than offset by the full 5 per cent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar in the past year. Will the Minister acknowledge that government predictions on job growth through the trade deal are based on a 75-cent Canadian dollar? Will the Minister tell Canadians what the impact of an 80-cent dollar will do to those projections?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Hon. Member that the strength in the Canadian dollar will be a reflection of the strength of the Canadian economy. As the Canadian economy improves its competitive position, as we expect will be the case during the trade agreement, this will be reflected in improvements in job creation, investment action, and all those things which come from a stronger economy.
We have introduced a number of measures over the last three and a half years that are improving that competitive position. It is one of the key reasons why we have seen the strength in the Canadian dollar. It is also one of the key reasons why we have seen 1,200,000 jobs created during that same period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that we may have inadvertently gotten a little out of order. I will try to correct that. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. I will come to the Hon. Member for Davenport in a moment.


CLOTHING AND PLYWOOD-CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. U.S. Secretary Baker is quoted in news reports as telling the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that he had been told by the Canadian Government that the Government would take another look at its plywood standards and would substantially reduce planned help to the clothing industry.
Will the Minister confirm that U.S. meetings did take place on Wednesday with Canadian representatives and that in fact these promises were made?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that meetings take place between the Canadian and the U.S. administration on trade matters quite often. So there would be meetings on Monday. There may have been meetings on Wednesday as the Hon. Member suggests.
I can deal with the plywood issue by pointing out that under the free trade agreement Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was to rule on the technical assessment of grade C and D United States plywood to see whether they met Canadian standards in our building codes. Canada Mortgage and Housing did such a review and decided that the U.S. C and D grade levels do not meet the requirements set out in our building codes.
Under the free trade agreement should this decision be taken, as it has, there is provision for setting up a panel to review this technical evaluation. We have informed the Americans that under the terms of the FTA we are ready and willing to establish such a panel at this time.


TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE UNITED STATES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister if in fact she is saying that when Secretary Baker testified before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday about these commitments from the Canadian Government to retreat from positions which had been taken, those statements were incorrect and that they were some kind of mistruth?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statements to which the Hon. Member refers. I cannot make a judgment about them.
I can report to the House, as the Minister of Finance has reported, that there has been no final decision taken on the issue of the duty remission. We have provision to do that in the free trade agreement. We will be announcing that at the appropriate time, as the Minister of Finance has indicated.
I have explained, at more length than you, Mr. Speaker, may care to entertain, the technical provisions in the free trade agreement which allow us to deal with the plywood issue. I can repeat it for the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Pat Carney: They say "No, no!" They ask the question, but when I give the answer they say "No, no!"
The point is that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not accept the U.S. plywood standards with respect to grades C and D. Under the free trade agreement there is provision for a panel to review that. We have informed the
March 18, 1988

Americans that we are willing to set up a panel. That is the answer to the question.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a follow-up to a question I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made a commitment to look at the possibility of preparing a bill for the damages we are suffering as a result of transboundary acid rain pollution coming into Canada and in anticipation of next month's meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and President Reagan in Washington. Has the Government made a decision on the question of preparing a bill for Canada's damages suffered as a result of American acid rain pollution?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no, there has not been a decision to my knowledge. However, I will make inquiries and get back to the Hon. Member as to where that particular issue stands.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member with a short supplementary, please.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CONSULT AFFECTED PARTIES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Government will not dilly-dally on this important matter. In making a decision will the Government consult the maple sugar producers of Quebec, the cottage, motel and resort owners in Muskoka, and all parties that are affected in industry, forests and farming, as well as provincial and municipal Governments downwind to American acid rain pollution? Will that consultation take place?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the Hon. Member is suggesting that we consult because so often we are criticized by other Hon. Members across the way for doing just that. Of course there will be consultation. Of course I would not want to leave the impression that nothing has been done with respect to this very important issue of the transborder control of acid rain and other pollution aspects that affect our environment.
The Government, through the Minister of the Environment, has provided strong leadership. There has been strong leadership by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and very strong leadership by our Prime Minister.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CENTRAL AMERICA-INTERVENTION BY UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who is answering for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It pertains to a clarification that she made just a few moments ago when I was asking if she was announcing a change in Canadian foreign policy. I want to ask her very specifically this.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House on December 2 the following:
We oppose third party intervention in Central America, whatever the source, and have made that position clear to both superpowers.
Is the Minister now saying that the United States is justified in intervening in the region because it signed the Rio treaty? Could we get clarification of that? Has the Government changed its policy? That is the question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to what I have already said on this matter, and that is that it is within the right of Honduras to call in the U.S. assistance. Under the Rio Treaty it is legal for the U.S. to provide such support if an incursion has occurred, and we are informed that such an incursion did occur, which is the advice we received from our Ambassador.
I have also pointed out that our position is that we deeply regret these incidents because it is destabilizing to the region. We are calling in the American and Nicaraguan Ambassadors to express our grave concern and to indicate our continued support for the peace negotiations which are scheduled to take place on Monday.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On February 12 I raised in the House the fact that the Government has given itself a six-month interest free loan of over $1 billion in that, although some income taxes have been reduced as of January of this year, payroll deductions do not take effect until July.
Now that the Conservative Chairman of the Finance Committee has called this situation a "rip-off', will the Government do the right thing and agree to pay Canadian taxpayers the interest due to them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is quite aware of the difficulty of

March 18, 1988
Oral Questions
introducing the change in tax reform, moving from exemptions to credits, to come half way through the year.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Justice delayed is justice denied.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have made that provision applicable to the first part of the year to avoid complexity in the Income Tax Act, as I am sure the Hon. Member would support. For fiscal reasons we are only bringing in the change in the withholding payments, the payroll deductions, as of July 1. Again, for fiscal reasons, the deductions that are made in the first part of the year will only be repaid to taxpayers when they receive their refunds in 1989.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. This week I met with constituents of mine who are federal government language trainers and teachers who are concerned that their long-standing dispute with the Treasury Board remains unresolved.
In light of the important service provided by those dedicated public servants to the Government and to Canada, can the Minister report any progress towards reaching an amicable settlement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in this very important issue. Of course I share with the Hon. Member the view that those people do provide a very important service to Canada.
I would like to tell the House that a settlement had been reached on September 10 which was subsequently rejected by the membership. On January 21 the majority conciliation report was issued which recommended that the September agreement be adopted as provided for in the original negotiating agreement.
Treasury Board has informed the group that we are prepared to sign an agreement on the basis of the majority conciliation report, and that we are prepared, willing, and able to sit down and proceed with the negotiations. I would hope that all Members would encourage that to take place, because that in effect is respecting the collective bargaining process.


Mr. Speaker:: On a supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


QUERY WHETHER TREASURY BOARD WILL RENEGOTIATE CONTRACT
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister on the same issue.
The language teachers are very frustrated. In fact there is a demonstration outside the House today. Is the Treasury Board prepared to renegotiate the contract that the teachers have rejected?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, to engage in renegotiations they would have to come back to the bargaining table, and that is what we have invited them to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, a single question, please.


LANGUAGE TEACHERS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board aware of the fact that language teachers rejected the September agreement and the majority report of the Conciliation Board, given the fact that this agreement would increase by 87 percent the number of teaching hours?
Can the Minister explain why he states, in his letter to the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, bearing today's date that it is not the policy of the Government to negotiate publicly and that he would rather let the negotiation process take its course although the negotiations have not resumed?
Is the Minister prepared now to go back to the bargaining table in order to arrive at a fair agreement with the language teachers of the Public Service of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the double standard of the New Democratic Party. On the one hand, it respects and supports the collective bargaining process. On the other hand, the Hon. Member wants me to become involved in the negotiations in public.
Earlier I stated that we are prepared to sit down. We have invited the group to recommence negotiations on the basis of the majority conciliation report-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Oh, that's the condition?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I challenge the Hon. Member, rather than trying to make a political issue, to encourage the union to come back to the bargaining table.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What a hypocrite you are.
March 18, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's not fair at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has directly impugned the honour of another Hon. Member. I would ask that he withdraw.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Michael Morris Cassidy: You will understand my strong feelings on that, Mr. Speaker, although I withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has withdrawn, and that is an end to the issue.
I call upon the Hon. Minister of Communications who, I think, has something to say to this House on a matter that has been raised earlier, and I think that Hon. Members would allow me to bend the rules a little to hear her.

[ Translation]


THE LATE YVETTE ROUSSEAU
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women have lost a great friend. Yvette Rousseau has devoted most of her career in the trade-union movement and in politics to the enhancement of the status of women in Canada.
I remember well the period in the 1970s when she was vicepresident and, later, president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women in Canada. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was a new Member here in Ottawa, and one of the few women sitting in this House of Commons. I have good memories of my contacts with Mrs. Rousseau during her tenure at the Council and after, at the time of her appointment to the Senate, in 1979.
I was very glad to see that she kept on with her work and efforts for Canadian women in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, along with the tremendous work that was carried out by the late, great Therese Casgrain, the Province of Quebec has provided much leadership, indeed tremendous leadership. There have been many pioneers in the work of advancing the women's movement throughout the country, but particularly in the Province of Quebec there have been pioneers who have provided examples for the rest of us. Yvette Rousseau was one of those pioneers. She provided guidance, counsel, and support to the many women who are now involved in improving the political, social, and economic standing of women across this country. But more than providing that
The late Yvette Rousseau
support, guidance, and counsel she provided an example that we would all do well to emulate.
I am very saddened by her death.

Her death is a loss for Parliament and for Canadian women.
I would like to extend the Government's deepest sympathy and mine to her family.


Raymond Garneau: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I rose pursuant to Standing Order 21 to make a statement and deal briefly with the great loss Canada has suffered when Mrs. Rousseau passed away. On behalf of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), I should like to join the Minister of Communications and pay tribute to Mrs. Rousseau.
The Leader of our party has conveyed to Mrs. Rousseau's family not only the expression of our condolences, but also of our appreciation for the tremendous contribution Mrs. Rousseau has made to Canadian men and women generally.
All those who had an opportunity to know Senator Rousseau very well and to work with her can bear witness to the fact that she was a woman with a clear head, a strong will tempered with a kind heart. Between 1940 and 1945, long before the mass demonstrations of the last few years for women emancipation, Senator Rousseau was already fighting in the front lines for the emancipation of women's in the labour force. As a young woman, she had already contributed to obtain the right to vote for Quebec women. She was one of the first women to become union leaders. She had thought and written a great deal, and on top of that, she had found the time to raise a family of eight children who were for her a source of great satisfaction.
I should also like to mention her kindness for her fellow workers, her friends, as well as her generosity and understanding of people's problems. Yet, in all discussions, she always demonstrated a lot of willpower and a strong determination to achieve her objectives.
On behalf of the Leader of the Liberal Party, of all my colleagues and on my own behalf, I should like to offer Mrs. Rousseau's family our most sincere condolences in their great loss and remind all Canadians, women especially, that they have just lost a great ally.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Rousseau.
Mrs. Rousseau devoted her entire life to Canadian workers, men and women alike. She began as a simple worker in the textile industry.
She was a leader in the women's movement in Canada, founding member and President of the Federation des femmes

March 18, 1988
Privilege-Ms. Copps
du Quebec and co-founder, with the Government of Quebec, of the Quebec Council on the Status of Women.
As the Hon. Minister has said, we have lost a great friend, and to her family we extend our sympathies. In all her work, Ms. Rousseau insisted that the significant contributions made by women in our society as home makers, as economic partners in the labour force, and as a powerful political lobby, be recognized.
"Government would be well advised", she warned, "not to underestimate the vital strength of Canadian women".
One thing which Yvette Rousseau has taught us as female parliamentarians is that when it came to women's issues she never took a partisan line. She thought it was very important to raise equity for women in our society.
In her maiden speech to the Senate Ms. Rousseau stated her intention to work for the betterment of Canada and to promote the rights, both social and political, of every individual in our regions and minority groups. The dedication with which she pursued this goal provides an inspiration to all parliamentarians now assembled and to Canadian people everywhere.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to extend our sympathy to the family of Ms. Rousseau and to say on behalf of all Canadians that I know that we are better off because she walked among us. May she rest in peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly appropriate that this question of privilege should be raised, given the comments just made in the House about an incredible woman who really did much to speak to the issue of equality for women. Unfortunately it seems that plus p a change, plus c'est la me me chose.
You will remember last fall, Mr. Speaker, when in a committee of the House I was referred to as a "goddamned ignorant bitch". Subsequent to that statement, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) who made it stood up on Friday, October 30, and said that he wished to withdraw that remark completely.
At that time I took the Hon. Member for Burlington at his word, that he intended to withdraw that remark completely, so you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, how shocked and surprised I was to receive some correspondence which in fact indicates that his apology in the House was not believed by himself.
I should like to spend a moment reading a couple of paragraphs from the correspondence which made me seek to raise this question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the Hon. Member could give the Chair the date of the letter to which she refers. I take it that it is a letter from the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) to somebody.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister made a statement in the House unequivocally withdrawing his remarks on Friday, October 30.
On November 2, a letter went to the Member from a person not known to me who was responding in a tongue-in-cheek way to try to suggest to the Member that his remarks were inappropriate.
I do not want to read the whole letter, but I will read a couple of paragraphs which I think illustrate my point. It reads:
Dear Bill:
Just wanted to touch bases with you on this Copps business. Nasty stuff, what? I think a fitting response from you would be to sponsor a Bill in the House banishing women back to the kitchen: you know the old saw, keep them pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter.
Bill, can you imagine young Canadian women aspiring to be MPs? Mind you, now, I don't see anything wrong with elected old broads serving coffee-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I just want to know that the Chair has the facts here. Apparently that is a letter written by somebody to the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course that in itself is not a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member come right to the point now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That gives the tone of that letter which was written tongue in cheek.
Subsequently the Hon. Member for Burlington wrote a letter, dated February 11, 1988 to a Mr. Moses C. Sheppard of Timmins, Ontario, in which he stated:
Dear Moses:
Thank you very much for your letter of November 2 about "you know who". My staff and I had a real good laugh at the various comments you made.
1 am reluctant to circulate it in the House of Commons in case it may receive unanimous consent.
Many thanks for your good wishes.
It is signed by the Hon. Member for Burlington.
If we look at the contents of the letter written tongue in cheek and the response of the Member, who is basically saying that women should not be allowed to run as MPs, women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and women should be allowed to serve coffee, I believe that when the Member stood up and unequivocally withdrew his remarks he in fact had no intention of doing so. That is clearly in evidence by his response to this particular individual.
March 18, 1988

I received the correspondence from the gentleman in Timmins, who was so irate that he actually wrote another letter to the Member in which he stated that his apology was a fraud, that he should apologize to the House and follow up on it, and that is why I am raising it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think what the gentleman wrote to the Member is apposite to the point the Hon. Member is making. I take very carefully the point the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is making.
The question is whether or not the Hon. Member for Burlington was sincere in his withdrawal. The Hon. Member is not here because he is in his riding attending to other duties. When he returns I will ask him to address the matter.
If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East would keep in touch with the Chair, perhaps we could arrange a time when the Hon. Member for Burlington is here, as well as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, and I will hear the matter further.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the issue was an apology and the apology was made. We are now dealing with an alleged question of privilege which does not in any way involve the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: It certainly does.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member from Hamilton East chose to raise this on a Friday so that it would sit over the weekend.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I do not care if she wants to set up some other Member and practise politics that way, but I think this is an abuse of the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). 1 am not going to hear any further Members on this matter at this time. I will discuss with Hon. Members how and under what circumstances the issue might be resumed. Certainly the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) ought to have a chance to have his say.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I start my question of privilege, could I indicate that we would like to know when this matter will return to the House so we may add any interventions that we may have.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me assure Hon. Members that when the matter comes back, the Government and both opposition Parties will, of course, be notified.
I also want it clearly understood that I will deal with the point, which point is now on the record. I do not think it is in the interests of this place or of that particular Hon. Member
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy
who is complained of to turn this issue into a debate in which every Member who, for whatever reason, thinks that he or she has something to say, can do so. I just point that out as a matter of caution. Primarily, I want to hear from the Hon. Member for Burlington. Unless there is something of very great importance to be said by others, let me indicate that the Chair will exercise a certain degree of restraint in opening this matter into a full-blown debate.
However the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) I believe has another point. I recognize the Hon. Member.


POINT OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not my intent in my previous remarks to encourage a fullblown debate, but since you had given notice that the matter would be dealt with later I just wanted assurances that we would be forewarned as much as possible.
The issue on which I stand is the attendance of cabinet Ministers in the House. I want to state at the beginning that I understand they have other duties and other obligations, and we in the Opposition appreciate that. But we are in a situation today-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could help from a point of view of procedure. I think what the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) is raising is really a point of order. I appreciate that the Hon. Member is not taking a position that cabinet Ministers are not here because they are idle or not very busily engaged in other things. I think the point of order which the Hon. Member is trying to make, and he is speaking on behalf of his Party, has to do with the number of Ministers who may be available at any given time to receive questions in Question Period. If that is the point, I certainly will hear the Hon. Member.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the point, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in my note to you I will not draw this matter out at any length. We had 10 cabinet Ministers here today out of a Cabinet of approximately 40. This has been a problem all week and it is a situation which affects our privileges and our ability in the Opposition to act. We have a Minister away and the Parliamentary Secretary away. In my particular case, a Minister who answered on behalf of another Minister yesterday is not here today. We have matters that are important to opposition Members and it becomes very difficult and, indeed, impossible to raise issues and to get any type of answers by anybody who is even remotely related to the topic.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) could reply.

Petitions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: First, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the ministry which answers questions. We have made every effort to supply acting Ministers who can stand in for other Ministers. I think you will find today that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) did an excellent job of standing in for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
The business of government involves being in the House for Question Period, that is true. It also involves being in other meetings and in other areas of the country. I think we do as good a job as any Government in the past has in answering questions. If there is any inconvenience, I will be glad to take it up with my hon. friend with respect to any particular Minister or ministry.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you want to open up this inquiry, as my friend seems to, that there is difficulty in trying to hold committee meetings. Certain members of the Opposition are not present. I am prepared to debate that topic at any time but I do not think it is helpful today.
We supply acting Ministers. Today a question was answered on the Welland Canal by a Parliamentary Secretary. We are always in a position to answer any questions which the Opposition in its meagre numbers may wish to pose.


Mr. Speaker:: However meagre the numbers may be, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) is here and wishes to rise again. I recognize the Hon. Member on a short intervention.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that each of the opposition Parties has fewer Members in it in the House than the Cabinet, you will have noted today that each of us had more Members in the House than the number of cabinet Ministers.
It is not a matter of just the ministry that answers the questions. The problem is that you get notice one day and the Minister who gave notice is not here. It seems there is no one on the government side who is capable of answering these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill who is speaking on this matter, not on a personal basis but, I take it, as a representative of his Party, has brought a matter to the attention of the Government. The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has replied, and I think absolutely correctly, that it is the obligation of the Government to answer questions. However, having said that, all Hon. Members will know that there are times, because of the press of other duties, when Ministers, who might very well prefer to be here sometimes, have to be elsewhere. On balance it is the obligation of the Government to have as many Ministers as is appropriate here at Question Period. I think the Hon. Minister of State's response was civil and reflective. He has indicated that he is prepared to discuss the matter with the Hon. Member for
March 18, 1988
Churchill, and I would expect other Members if that is appropriate.
As I say, it is a point of order. Perhaps the Hon. Minister of State and the Hon. Member for Churchill can have a further discussion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of many residents of the City of Scarborough in the Province of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to these petitioners in the certain assurance that Hon. Members will, therefore, provide a remedy, I am honoured to present this petition regarding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to strike down the Canadian abortion law. They strongly urge us as a House of Commons to recognize the rights of the unborn and the Canadian Charter of Rights and to proclaim a new law which will protect these rights from wanton aggression throughout all ages in the development of the fetus beginning at conception.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly lengthy petition from my constituency which deals with the question of the U.S. trade deal. The people who have signed the petition indicate that they feel that the trade agreement 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, and they therefore ask very strongly that this Government dissolve Parliament and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all question be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would confirm to the House that this is the third day in a row that the Government has been unable to answer any questions on the Order Paper, and perhaps he could explain to the House at
March 18, 1988

the same time if he is suffering because there are no cabinet Ministers in Ottawa to answer these questions.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our record of answering questions on the Order Paper, and I think our record is about 87 per cent, if my hon. friend has any particular question that he is very much interested in, I would be pleased to check with officials and get back to him.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Malepart:
-That this House condemns the Government for its failure to act in matters of interest to the region of Greater Montreal, including the space agency, the development of the Vieux-Port, the planning and development of Montreal Harbour, the Soligaz project, the shipyards and the economic renewal of Montreal East as well as the economic deterioration of the southwestern part of the region.-
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I should like to cover a number of subjects, but I will mention just a few. I want to say something about Montreal's Vieux-Port about which the Opposition keeps saying we are not moving fast enough. I get the clear impression that the Opposition is unaware of the new developments and cannot keep track of the Vieux-Port evolution.
Last December I announced that the federal Government had endorsed the entire master plan for the Vieux-Port, a project which might trigger over-all investments ranging from $350 million to $500 million. Not only did the Government endorse the project, the Vieux-Port master plan, but it took action as well.
We have already invested $104 million in the Vieux-Port over the past few years, but the thing to note is that, unlike the previous Government which invariably acted unilaterally, it is imperative in the development of an undertaking of such significance to Montreal to seek the agreement, participation and approval of the other two Government levels. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and all my colleagues that it is the approach we have taken, and so far the results have been very promising. So much so that in the near future we may be in a position to unveil the over-all plan which will make it possible
Supply
to complete the Vieux-Port project in time for Montreal's 350th anniversary in 1992.
I could also say something about the Montreal harbour, an important issue because, as it happened, transportation was the driving force behind the development of Montreal. We are monitoring the situation very closely because the Government intends to see this project through, and again the matter will be settled in full consultation with the various local interests.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, Montreal is the economic motor. Montreal is Quebec's cultural motor, one of the most important elements of our collective life in Canada.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is an international city, a city of high technology, a financial centre, a cultural city, a city of arts, a city for tourism, a transport centre, a manufacturing centre, a design centre.
Since 1984, we have done much more than any other previous Government for Montreal, and much more than my Hon. colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) with his three interventions, which makes one a year. What we have given Montreal is an opportunity to have its place in the sun as a great metropolis, a major Canadian centre and a great international centre, and I am proud of what our Government has been able to accomplish in the Montreal region these last three and a half years.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister called Montreal the motor. He can no longer say that Montreal is the engine as he has brought about the closing of Bombardier as a manufacturer of railway engines. He wants Montreal to shine like the sun, but to shoot for the stars, Montreal has to become space oriented, which the Minister forgot to say. I have here newspaper articles which the Minister has certainly seen and which say things such as "Mayor Dore furious about the space agency" and "Allocation of the space program-Minister MacDonald fed up with being taken for an idiot". This same Mr. Picard, who was responsible for this issue, states that he does not understand the Government. I am not talking about the past or about what happened in such or such a case. We want clear and specific answers. Montrealers want to know.
Now that the Prime Minister has said something quite different about the space agency, now that he has said that there will be a space agency, if he did tell the truth, can the Minister tell us immediately that this agency will be in Montreal and when it will be established?
As concerns the Vieux-Port, the Government has been saying yes for three years, but it has failed to deliver. Can the Minister tell us today that there will be $130 million in new money, not in recycled funds as in the case of Montreal East, and that he will not try to make people believe, as in the case of Montreal East, that the provincial Government is to blame if the federal Government fails to deliver? You were caught short in the case of Montreal East because the provincial Government made its announcement before you did.

March 18, 1988
Supply
On the matter of the Soligaz project for Montreal East, will you now be in a position to answer: Yes, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) will deal with that, and within a month that will be solved, that will be in operation?
Concerning shipyards,-note all of that down, you will have a number of things to answer on-will the contracts that Layton is supposed to be awarding for the two destroyers in the TRUMP Program next week, will both of them be going to Quebec shipyards? Yes or no? That is the point.
Concerning early retirement that people have been requesting for workers in Vickers, in Montreal East, and also for South West Montreal, is it yes? Are you going to announce early retirement, again not the one that was negotiated with Quebec, but the program you have under Unemployment Insurance? Yes or no? And lastly, concerning Southwestern Montreal, because they also have difficulty there, and they are asking for an economic renewal committee, will you be answering yes to that? This is what we want to know.


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the Eton. Member's usual talent in contradictions. Of course that is a daily situation in his own Party. So I recognize he has all the talent in the world for contradictions. Let me state that concerning the space agency, there is absolutely no contradiction. And I can tell you there will be a space agency, and I could simply repeat again what I said in this House, as recorded in Hansard. I am taking for granted my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) can read.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Montreal or Ottawa?


Robert René de Cotret: So I will let him do his own reading. But there will be a space agency that will be announced when we have determined exactly what the nature of the program will be.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Where?


Robert René de Cotret: My colleague the Minister of State and the Prime Minister have been saying the same thing exactly. There will be a space agency, and the space agency will be announced as soon as the space program can be announced- it is before Cabinet now.
You are raising a lot of other matters, all pertinent of course but matters that are evolving, matters we deal with on a daily basis and that mesh in with any announcements we made, as I have listed in this House today, over these last few years, these last few months, announcements that succeeded in making Montreal a city on the go, while Montreal under the previous Government was a declining city, a city that was losing its role, not only as an international city, but as a national and a Quebec city because of the previous Government's inaction we inherited.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting document which states the following: "De Cotret promises action in Montreal this autumn." This document is dated July 8, 1986. Now, after almost two years, we have seen a report from the Comite pour la relance de Veconomie et de I'emploi de Vest de Montreal which says that all those problems remain. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is ready today to provide particulars about all those problems and the suggestions made in the committee report. For example, I would like to put to him the following question: The committee has suggested that in order to preserve existing jobs in Montreal East it is necessary to maintain for a 3-year period a policy of preferential purchases in depressed regions as far as transportation, metallic products, primary metallurgy and petrochemistry are concerned. Is it now possible for the Minister to accede to that suggestion?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my honourable colleague that he should follow more closely what is going on. Two committees have been set up and a third is dealing with the southwestern part of Montreal. The first, for the Greater Montreal, was the Comite consultatif sur Montreal or the Picard Commitee; the second one, was CREEM or the so-called Pichette Committee. We have given our answer to the Picard Committee and its members are quite pleased with it because we accepted most of its recommendations and, as I said earlier, several among them have already been implemented while others are being carried out.
We have also given our answer to the Pichette committee and Mr. Pichette has said that he is quite pleased with the response of the federal Government and with that of other levels of government. We will see what will come out of the consultations going on for the other region.
So when I am asked what we intend to do, I wonder, because we said months ago what we were going to do. We said it clearly and I will be pleased to send the response documents to my hon. colleague who, unfortunately, must have lost them under huge piles of mail. But I will be happy to send him these responses which were given months ago. And we are now beginning to see the results. That is why we can talk about 114,000 new jobs since 1984. That is why we can talk about 50 000 new jobs in Greater Montreal in the last 12 months. There is action in that region. Why? Because we are implementing recommendations made by people from the area, in consultation with them, and accepted by the Government. These are positive measures, unlike the shameful inaction of the previous Government who managed to lose 4,000 jobs, in Montreal, between 1980 and 1984.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister's special interest for the Montreal economy, I have a question for him.
We know that at the beginning of 1976, the Leader of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (M. Malepart) left
March 18, 1988

politics to join the McMillan-Binch law firm in Toronto. The present Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra and leader of the official Opposition (M. Turner) then undertook to publish a newsletter, to the cost of $15,000, aimed at a specific group of people. One issue of the newsletter dealt with the Montreal problem. He wrote that there had been long years of neglect and he predicted in very simple terms the decline of Montreal. He said that the federal Government of the time, a Liberal Government, didn't do much for the city. He also said that it was Montreal's fault and that we would have to wait till year 2000 to see things turn around.
I would like to know if the Minister shares the view expressed in 1978 by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this question is quite relevant since on July 14, 1978, the present Leader of the Liberal Party stated, and rightly so, that Montreal was a city on the decline and in transition. He added that its national role had diminished. That was right too, although this trend was more obvious in the last four years. He said also that Montreal had lost its financial power, that its service industries were losing ground, its harbour was not longer prosperous and the most active, its manufacturing sector was struggling for survival. Then he said that after years and years of negligence and foreign competition, its airports were no longer the main gateway to the country for international travellers and that its reputation as a congenial city was tarnished. And so on and so on. In conclusion he said that problems in Montreal did not happen overnight and that most of them were its own fault.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the conclusion of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Montreal is not really responsible for what happened. We never accepted that. The problem is that the former Government did not play its role, although Members from the Hon. Member's Party were well aware of the situation. What action did they take? My hon. colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie made three speeches in three years. That is it. And 4,000 jobs were lost.
When we came to power in 1984, we sat down with people at the regional level. We met with all concerned people in the cultural, industrial, artistic community or in the labour movement. We made recommendations and three and a half years later, we have managed to create 114,000 new jobs. We have a booming and striving economy. We now have a base to build on. If I were a Liberal, I would be ashamed today. How dare Liberals claim that Montreal is a victim of its own mistakes, when the city was driven to its ruin by the mistakes of the previous Government. But, the actions of the present Government are rebuilding Montreal, and making it an international capital again.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Montreal is spatial!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to justify the rage of the Minister. It might be very interesting, but it does not tell much.
I believe that if we look at this motion and the very serious problems which led to its introduction ... It is very important to see that what we have here today is not something which results from the Conservative Government's policies. It does result from that government to some degree, but also from the Liberal Government which did not pay sufficient attention to that area of the country.
I believe that if we took an honest look, if we analysed the problem with some measure of reason, there is something we would have to say. We would have to say, as Gerard LeBlanc has said in the press, that one must not, as Jean-Claude Malepart has so often done, link plant shutdowns in the East directly with poverty in that area and that the entire metropolitan area is affected by the industrial crisis in Montreal East. And it is true, Mr. Speaker. It is true that what we have here is an industrial crisis which affects the entire Montreal area and in fact, Mr. Speaker, the whole country. The crisis is visible in my own riding of Essex-Windsor, where there are a lot of closures-and the same can be said of Hamilton, where shutdowns abound, and also of many regions in the province of Quebec, where a great number of plants have closed down and all this is the result of the policy void which exists with regard to industrialization in our country.
It can truly be said, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here, which is similar to what many analysts have encountered in parts of the United States, is a situation of disindustrialization, one where our manufacturing sector is in a lot of trouble. And these problems are not getting the full attention of this Government.
Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the trade agreement with the United States is a step which will result in a worsening of the situation for our industrial sector, throughout the country as well as in Montreal East. I must say, however, Mr. Speaker, although we recognize that this is not only a problem which concerns Montreal East, that there are many things which people who work in Montreal West did, very important things to support this part of the city which is very significant in the history of all countries, the City of Montreal.
If we take the example of Montreal East, we must say first that some figures really give an idea of the size of the problem, such as: about 22,000 unemployed in this part of the city, about 9,400 welfare recipients and close to 7,500 group dismissals over five years. Those figures can be found in a document released by the Comittee for the Economic Renewal of Montreal East. The situation on the Montreal East is due to the inaction of the federal Government, which is unacceptable to our Party. Montreal East wants clear answers and effective and quick action. The Committee for the Economic Renewal of Montreal East made important recommendations, and we

March 18, 1988
Supply
give our support to those recommendations, particularly: 1. We agree to the participation of the federal Government to the establishment of a $50 Million fund to assist businesses in the East, which must modernize in order to diversify. 2. We agree to the participation of the federal Government to a training or retraining fund to help workers, men and women, from the East which are affected by technological change in the plants. 3. We agree that Montreal East should be declared designated area to enable older workers to benefit from an adjustment program which would provide them with a guaranteed income.
The importance and the seriousness of the challenges to be met in the East require consultation and input from various levels of Government. It is necessary to establish a coordinating structure to rally forces and take action rapidly.
The Conservatives had promised that this government would bring about changes. Yet, anybody can see that when the Minister spoke today, he talked about jobs that were created not by this government but by the market itself, through Canadian exports and our economic growth. This is perfectly true. This government did not do anything to sustain growth, indeed, it only replaced the old patronage by Tory patronage. This is not the kind of future Canadian men and women wish for their country. This is not what our fellow citizens are demanding. We want something different.
I think if we look at East Montreal and at the problems which have developed there, the tremendous number of shutdowns which have taken place, we can see above all the failure of this Government to put in place an industrial policy which will show some direction in the auto sector, in petrochemicals and in metallurgy, parts of the economy which have traditionally supplied the jobs of eastern Montreal and the southeastern region associated with it.
The Government has not taken that direction. It refuses to provide that leadership. It says instead the answer is somehow to be found lying over the rainbow in a flawed free trade deal with the United States. That kind of approach has simply told the people of East Montreal that this Government is not interested and is not prepared to provide direction, that it is not prepared to lead.

We believe, in our party, that the survival committee put in place for Montreal East is very important. On behalf of our party, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) gave this committee the widest participation possible, thus indicating that there are true answers to the issues involved, and not only the type of answers that consist of washing one's hands off the problem and saying: "There are already many jobs and we do not need to do anything for that part of the city".
Personally, I do not think it will be possible to carry on with this kind of Government. It is necessary to replace this Government, its policies and to develop an industrial strategy which will address the issue of jobs as well as the industrial vocation of Canada generally and Montreal East in particular. To achieve this, Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary to get rid of the trade deal with the United States, failing which we would be fighting with one hand tied behing our back in the area of industrial policies. There are so many things that we will not be able to do with this agreement namely to make our energy industry work for our industrial industry. It will not be possible with the trade deal with the United States to give many industries the necessary support to ensure the recovery of Montreal East. It is just not possible!
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of it, because the Deputy Minister of Finance stated before a committee that we will have to change our regional development policy entirely. It is also impossible for us with the trade deal to do things in the car manufacturing industry to ensure that a company such as Hyundai buy parts here in Canada and creates jobs too.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support this motion. It is a motion which tells the truth, but not the whole truth, because this Government is faced with many problems, including major ones in Montreal East which it has inherited from past Liberal Governments. As for us, we have to work as hard as possible to establish with the City of Montreal and with Montreal East a most important and profitable industry for our future economy. To do so, I hope the Government will accept this report and all the recommendations made by the Committee for the recovery of Montreal East.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. When we deal with such an important issue as the economic development of Montreal and we hear the fine speeches uttered by the NDP Socialists. I feel that Montrealers, Quebecers, and Canadians generally should have at least an inkling of the NDP position.
I have a question for the Hon. Member who is always criticizing the Free Trade Agreement. In Montreal, for instance, I met with the Young Chamber of Commerce and I also met many of the people involved, and so did the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret). These people, in the petrochemical industry, for instance, sell their products on the American market, which is subject to tariffs. They want access to that market and they support the Free Trade Agreement because it will give them access to that market and increase their competitivity.
The New Democratic Party reminds me of a mother looking at soldiers on parade and thinking that the only one in step is her son. The New Democrats believe that they are the only ones in step as far as economic development is concerned. Everyone else marches to a certain step, but they want to be different.
March 18, 1988

How credible is their position? After the Budget and the recovery and economic renewal plan of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and after the tabling of the Estimates, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) predicted the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.
In fact, over 1.2 million jobs have been created in this country! How can the New Democratic Party honestly and logically stand before the House and say that it has the solution to economic development in Montreal when all its economic statements are rejected by the business sector and experience shows that its pessimistic predictions of 300,000 jobs lost because of the economic policies of this country did not come true? What is the credibility of that party?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very important that a group got together in Montreal East and decided to work very hard to find a solution. It is very important for the community to find practical economic solutions, and this is why we supported the report of the committee for renewal in Montreal East. The Government might not agree, but it should be taking the initiative.
However, if we want to be honest, we have to say that it will not be possible to do everything that this committee would like in Montreal East. It will not be possible if we have the trade agreement with the United States because this agreement includes too many things which jeopardize our future economic freedom.
We are not alone in saying so. Many people throughout Canada and in Quebec say so. For instance, there is a coalition against free trade in Quebec, and it includes more people than any such group in other Canadian provinces. This coalition includes the Association des fermieres, workers, women, and many other groups. I think we have to say that.
The second point I want to make concerns what the Minister said about job forecasts made after the Government brought down its first Budget. Mr. Speaker, these forecasts were not made by us but by people working for the Department of Finance. That is the truth, although the Minister chooses not to interpret it that way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau, for questions or comments.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member this question. If there were a choice to be made between his riding and Montreal for the space agency, would he encourage the Government to place it in East End Montreal in order to create jobs there?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. We have a Leader in our Party, and when the Leader says that certain things are important to the Party, as far as I
Supply
am concerned, I trust the Leader of my Party. That may not be the case for the Hon. Member as far as her Leader is concerned. I do happen to trust my Leader, and I must say that Mr. Broadbent's answer that it was better to have the space agency in Montreal's aerospace sector, is an answer I can accept.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for taking the initiative to present this motion today, condemning the Conservative Government with respect to the economic situation in Montreal East and the south western region of that city.
Mr. Speaker, usually the resolutions or motions we present in the House concern regions other than the Montreal area. Until today, motions condemning the Government tended to focus on the economic situation in the Gaspe or the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area or, as in the case of the Domtar Plant in early 1985 ...
We have now reached the point where such motions concern regions that would not normally be the focus of this kind of attention on the part of parliamentarians in their concern for regional development.
Mr. Speaker, in the Montreal area the situation has become serious enough to make the Hon. Member for Montreal

Sainte-Marie decide to propose this debate, in order to draw the attention of the Government and to focus public opinion.
We know that Montreal East-and we have been discussing the subject for quite sometime-has 22,000 unemployed and 12,000 people on welfare, and this within a territory covering only five or six ridings.
In the south west region, unemployment is mainly due to plant shutdowns. The list is a familiar one, but I would like to recall the closing of the Gulf Refinery, La Parisette, certain sectors of Bombardier, especially those related to the railways, Vickers, and the list goes on. We are talking about plant shutdowns where men and women who have been employed by these plants for years suddenly found themselves out of a job. This AIDS virus, in the form of plant closures, has spread from Montreal East to the southwest of the city. That was pointed out last Thursday March 17, in La Presse, a Montreal newspaper, that also gave a list of businesses that have shut down: Siemens, 163 jobs lost; Coleco, 730 jobs lost; Sherwin-William, 300 jobs lost; Building Coticelli, 225 jobs lost; Redpath Sugar, 600 jobs lost; and Northern Electric, 60 jobs lost. That list is not complete since there were other closures coupled now with that great concern about a possible closure or possible contract losses at the CN Workshops of Pointe-Saint-Charles.

March 18, 1988
Supply
Mr. Speaker, the southwestern part of Montreal is now crying for help because of plant closures and because people with 20 or 25 years of service are faced with unemployment since the skills they acquired after all those years are not easily usable in other industries.
Mr. Speaker, while rumors spread about possible closures in Montreal East, we know that a Damocles sword threatens textile workers in the southwestern part of the city. This is possibly the most serious issue that faces Montreal or, I should say, the whole Canadian garment industry.
Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement with the United States will have a double-edged sequel: first it will eliminate custom duties, but then companies which produce and market high fashion clothing will find the going even rougher because most of the fabrics they use to make garments-an industry which employs tens of thousands of workers-are imported from abroad, and in most cases these fabrics are not even made in Canada because these are sought-after specialty fabrics used by a fashion-conscious industry. Canadian companies must travel the world over to find them, but under the trade agreement signed with the Americans these imported fabrics will not be allowed on the U.S. market. The point is that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), who claims that the free trade agreement with the United States will solve all our economic woes, has endorsed an agreement which does not recognize the country of origin where these products are made and which even excludes any textile product whose basic material is imported from a third country. The ultimate result is that Canadian companies, particularly those which are related to high fashion clothing-most of them in Montreal-will no longer have access to the American market. That is what we will get from the agreement which the Prime Minister of Canada has been boosting as the key to freer trade, the deal with which Canadian firms will open the doors to a market of 250 million consumers.
Among all businesses which will be affected by the free trade deal with the Americans, the clothing industry-it directly employs 110,000 people in Canada, roughly 60,000 in Quebec-will be hardest hit because as an industry it is involved in the so-called free trade agreement, yet in this particular instance it will be denied access to the U.S. market.
To make the situation somewhat less aggravating it has been decided to set a limit in the form of import quotas on these fabrics used to make clothes.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk of liberalizing trade, when we talk of an agreement that will open the U.S. market to Canadian manufacturers and when we limit the sales capacity of those businesses by restricting their ability to buy raw materials, I am wondering what kind of a trade agreement this is. We were right to say from the very beginning that if we do not have any problem with the concept of free-trade, we have considerable difficulties with the type of agreement that was
signed, which is unacceptable for the Montreal region, and particularly for the garment industry.
Mr. Speaker, this Government, this Conservative Party made promises to the Canadian people during the election campaign, particularly to the textile and garment manufacturers who employ so many workers.
Mr. Speaker, during a meeting in Sherbrooke in July of 1984, right in the middle of the campaign-I have here the press releases which were then published by the Conservative Party-they talked, as can be seen on page 2, item 5 of the press relase, of rationalizing Canadian production through the use of mechanisms and remission of duties to allow Canadian manufacturers to deal with foreign manufacturers of inexpensive goods while promoting Canadian expertise in sectors like fashion, marketing, and financing of foreign-made products distributed elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, the French translation that I just read is not very good and one must read the English version to understand what it is all about since it was probably written in English in the first place. But what does that mean? The Conservative Party made a commitment with the Canadian companies importing quality textile from countries other than the United States. It would grant duty remission to reduce production costs and thus insure greater access and competitiveness on new markets. They were to benefit from Canadian duty remission not only for textile but also for clothes. That was a commitment made by the Conservative Party.
Yesterday or the day before, the Minister of Finance stated in his answers to questions by me and my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (M. Axworthy): Show us a single statement whereby the Conservative Party or the Conservative Government offered a duty remission like the one the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute is asking for today, arguing that the industry needs help because if the Free Trade Agreement signed with the United States becomes effective, there will be 65,000 jobs lost in Quebec only, of which 25,000 in the Montreal region. We cannot afford to loose 25,000 jobs in an industry employing so many women who acquired skills over the years. Surely, we cannot afford to loose those jobs. People in that industry, in that private sector which is supposed to like the Conservatives, said that they will simply close their plants in Montreal to move to the United States from where, thanks the trade deal, they will be in a position so sell in Canada anyway without having to cope with all sorts of restrictions on their textile imports which are essential to produce top quality clothes.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot believe employers crying for help to protect Canadian men and women, I wonder exactly where we can find that knowledge of the issues and where we can find the truth.
Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated November 16, 1987, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) said to the Canadian garment industry, and I quote:
March 18, 1988



"With regard to duty remission programs the Government has long been on record as favouring these for both the apparel and the textile industry".
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was saying yesterday: Give me a quote. That reminds me of the time Mr. Bourassa asked for evidence in the National Assembly in Quebec. His own colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), said the Government had committed itself to duty remission. The $200 million a year that are involved will make the apparel industry of Canada able to compete with the Americans. But we now find ourselves in what I would call a Catch-22 situation, where the Government put us. The Americans will reject as unacceptable any duty remission our Government will grant. They will come and dictate policy to the Canadian Government and force it to maintain duties on products coming from third countries. Is that what is called political sovereignty of a country? Imagine having Washington dictate to us, Canadians who have elected our own government, the level of duties we should or could impose on products from abroad!
So, Mr. Speaker, the prospect I raised on previous occasions about the agreement the Prime Minister of Canada signed with his friend Ronald Reagan leading to a customs union sooner or later, and rather sooner than later, is exactly what we see happening in the textile and apparel sector. We are forced, under the threat of possible countervailing duties our apparel industry could be hit with by the Americans, to set our customs duties at the same level as theirs and often higher than theirs are now.
Mr. Speaker, the country of origin rule in the trade agreement normally requires, according to specific industries, between 50, 60 per cent of Canadian content to be granted access to the American market, or 30 per cent in other types; in the case of the textile industry, the percentage is null. And this is why we had to use import quotas on products, raw materials used in garments.
The Minister in charge of the Montreal area should take that situation extremely seriously because 25,000 jobs are at stake, and not only this is 25,000 jobs involving a lot of women, but this is an industry that has been for some years experiencing significant growth, thanks to programs established in the mid-70s. I think they started in 1972-73, when successive Governments in Quebec helped the industry by organizing fashion shows, so that little by little Canadian designers based in Montreal succeeded in getting a degree of international recognition that is some matter of pride for the Canadian garment industry.
Now, because of this trade agreement and the inability or impossibility of the Minister of Finance to respect his own commitments, thousands of jobs will be lost, women will
Supply
become unemployed and a thriving industry will be forced to move down South to the United States.
I referred to the garment industry because it is important. We could talk about lumber because, even though the mills are obviously in the regions, the companies have their headquarters in Montreal which is the center of operations, because of its financial and commercial activities. There is presently a 15 per cent tax that the Americans have forced upon us-this Government seems to be the puppet of the White House which made us to tax ourselves. That is the big discovery of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). We are flogging ourselves. We imposed a 15 per cent tax. The Americans told us: "If you increase stumpage fees, we will allow you to lower the tax". Big deal! That was orchestrated by the Americans. In British Columbia, by increasing stump-age fees enough, they managed ...


Bernard Valcourt: Did Quebec object to it?


Raymond Garneau: I am coming to that. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Government, the provincial Governments, had no choice, this Government had already buckled under, and not only on the principles, it had agreed. I talked about it with several provinces-we had talks with the President of the lumber industry association. Go and ask Mr. Zimmerman, you will see what he says.
Mr. Speaker, be that as it may, I do not want to rewrite history, but I think that the Conservatives will be severely blamed for that.
But let us take the example we have today. The Quebec government, under pressure from the federal Government, which in turn reacts to pressure from the White House, has raised its stumpage duties and has changed its legislation on forestry operations to force logging companies to reforest. And then, everybody goes down to Washington to ask for its blessing, because that is where evrything is settled nowadays.
There was probably a series of discussions with delegates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) or with delegates of the Minister for International Trade who travelled to Washington, where they look at all the figures. How much does it cost to plant a spruce seedling? Nine cents, 14 cents or 15 cents? Washington insists on knowing that, because only then will they be able to decide whether to accept that the federal Government reduces the 15 per cent tax it imposed on our lumber exports.
There are limits, Mr. Speaker. Our political sovereignty in matters of provincial jurisdiction is so jeopardized that, in order to decide what to do with this tax, the Quebec government will have to produce affidavits saying that it costs 14 cents and not 9 cents to plant a small tree, a spruce seedling. The only problem is that several co-ops which started reforestation programs had financial problems because they made too low a bid. And now, Washington starts telling us that according to experiences in the US, it only costs 9 cents!

March 18, 1988
Supply
We should also keep in mind that the existing tax is compounded by the strength of the Canadian dollar and instead of being a 15 per cent tax, it is really a 23 per cent tax. Meanwhile, Washington is checking to see if it costs 9 or 14 cents to plant a spruce seedling in Canadian forests.
That is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken with people who took part in the discussions, who represent the corporate sector, and that is what they told me. I do not think that they are all liars!
But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that in key sectors such as this one, this Government has placed Canadian businesses as well as Canadian and provincial jurisdictions under U. S. rule. This is because at one point some were afraid to do the right thing and bring the matter of the 15 per cent tax on lumber before the international GATT tribunal.
Mr. Speaker, the eastern and southwestern parts of Montreal were affected by the attitude of the Federal Government. I listened to the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce talk to us about job increases.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to Le Point on the CBC French language network when a university professor pointed out that the economic recovery had started before the Conservatives came to power and that all this was not the result of initiatives taken by the Government.


John Barry Turner: Three and a half years...


Raymond Garneau: Just wait, I can give you the date and the time of the program and you can have it out with the university professor who said that . . .
But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) himself stated right there in his Budget speech that the economic recovery had begun long before this Government took office.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that some Members are starting to wake up. We probably touched the right chord! Talking about how Washington humiliated them did not bring a move, but when the question is whether the economy started to grow in 1984, early in the morning of September 5, or towards the end of 1983, they get nervous!
Mr. Speaker, one fact remains: the government has a role to play. Of course, government Members can very well boast. But if they want to boast about the jobs that were created, taking all the credit to themselves, they also have to take responsibility for the negative aspects. Plants are indeed closing down, workers are losing their jobs and some Canadian men and women are experiencing a real tragedy. The government has a role to play in an economy where free enterprise is not the sole and only golden rule but where some think that the government must also offer some balance between a free and unrestrained competition and greater social justice. Government has some responsibility as well towards older employees who lose their jobs and cannot find work elsewhere. It has some responsibility towards industries like the lumber industry and, above all, the textile industry which is highly endangered
because of the trade deal and because of the inability of this government to stand up in front of the Prime Minister's friend, President Reagan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) (Mr. Val-court).


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to make a comment for the benefit of the Hon. Member who dealt with the free-trade agreement.
When we talk of free-trade, the Liberal Party says that we will lose our sovereignty. I think that Canadians and Quebecers as well as the members of this House are intelligent enough to know that when one asserts that Canada is giving up its sovereignty, one has to be logical. If we give up our sovereignty, it means that we cannot make any decision. The Leader of the Liberal Party travels throughout the country saying that we have given up the political and cultural sovereignty of our country and the irony of it all, Mr. Speaker, is that he adds: "If I am elected, I will tear up that agreement." Surely if we have lost our sovereignty, he could not tear up the agreement. Therefore his argument clearly does not make any sense and is a lot of rubbish.
The Hon. Member has tried to criticize the Free-Trade Agreement while discussing the economic future of Montreal and its impacts on the Quebec economy. As a member of the Quebec legislature he was in a position to get acquainted with the Quebec economy. I would like to put a question to him. I know that the federal Liberal party thinks that providence has conferred upon it every single quality as well as truth and a sacred right. It is difficult for them to sit in the Opposition.
Could the Hon. Member explain how come the Quebec Government, under the guidance of Premier Robert Bourassa, a good Liberal but someone who knows the Quebec economy and its strengths with his caucus and his Cabinet, how come the Quebec Liberal Party led by Mr. Bourassa supports the Free Trade Agreement contrary to the federal Liberal Party's position?
And could he also explain-since he talked a lot about textiles-the position of Jean-Guy Dionne or Eric Barry from the Canadian Textile Institute? Mr. Dionne has companies in the Beauce area and in Drummondville. Those people know the industry and support the Free Trade Agreement.
Is the federal Liberal Party saying to the Quebec Government: "Bourassa, you and Dionne are both wrong"?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's question because it will give me the opportunity to raise two others aspects that I had not touched upon in my speech.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Bourassa has laid down conditions which have not yet been satisfied for him to give his final agreement to free trade.
March 18, 1988

One of the first conditions laid down by Mr. Bourassa, and my colleague will remember the press releases of the Quebec Government, is that the American bill, the Omnibus Trade Bill as it is called, do exempt Canada from its protectionist measures.
Mr. Speaker, it is when the bill finally becomes law, after being passed by the U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, that we will know whether this condition will actually be met.
The second condition has to do with major retraining programs for the workers who will be affected by the trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has already told the House that his government and his Department would not propose any special programs or additional funds to assist in the retraining of workers.
Therefore, about that aspect you mentioned, I recognize that, from the point of view of a province that wishes to export electricity, this might prove a positive thing. I do understand the arguments of the Hon. Member who is trying to show that I am contradicting the provincial government. One thing is certain Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa is entitled to his opinion. 1 do recognize it. I have also accepted his conditions for Quebec's final acceptance of this agreement and we will see whether these conditions will actually be met by the friends of the Minister who just asked me the question. As far as 1 am concerned, I think the U.S. Government will never accept to make an exception for Canada in its Omnibus Trade Bill.
As for textiles, Mr. Speaker, this is a completely different matter, and the Hon. Minister's question makes me laugh, because it is not the Liberal party which proposed during its electoral campaign to offer a remission of customs duties paid not only by Canadian textile companies but also by Canadian clothing companies. We did not make that proposal. It is the present Prime Minister, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who promised a remission of customs duties during his campaign. That promise, Mr. Speaker, has been reiterated by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) in a letter sent to the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute to tell them that customs duties would be remitted.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Tory Government, the Progressive Conservative party that are in hot water. The Minister can ask me about Mr. Dionne or about the textile industry, that's all right. But I will reply: What is your answer to garment manufacturers? What is your answer as a Cabinet Minister to the allegations made by the industry representatives? Fifteen of them came to see us yesterday or the day before, and they told us about a potention loss of 65,000 jobs in Canada, including 25,000 in Quebec. You can refer to Mr. Dionne or some other people, but what do you answer to Mr. Dionne when you say, for example, that you will offer a remission of all the customs duties and when he asks whether it is for textile or clothing? You are stuck with your promise. It is this Government which promised the garment industry for a $200
Supply
million remission in customs duties. We on this side of the House did not make such a promise.
Then, if you have answers to give to Mr. Dionne, if you have answers to give to the garment industry, you could ask the question to your Prime Minister, to your Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to your Minister of Industry and Trade, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) because they made commitments and they run the risk of closing garment factories in Canada, by not living up to them. I could also talk about furniture manufacturing, as we talk about free trade.
Mr. Speaker, some people come and tell us that they are for free trade, for a Trade Agreement, because now they understand better that you cannot call that free trade.
We, in the Quebec caucus, had the visit of members of the Conseil du Patronat. They came to say that they are for the Trade Agreement, with some reservations. Big deal, Mr. Speaker! If I sit and you get up and ask that those who are in favour of the Bill please rise, when I am sitting, Mr. Speaker, I have a choice. I remain seated or I rise. I do not want to rise halfway up, because you will not count my vote. So this is what it is like when you are for something with reservations; I cannot understand such a position.
Once the general statement delivered, that question was put to every furniture industry representative, mostly household, and not business, and what was the answer of the household furniture industry representative? That he would close the plant to move to Virginia. So I asked him: "Why move to Virginia"? He said that it was simply because "In Virginia, I get the building free for five years and they meet 50 p. 100 of my payroll for the first year, and they also lend me the money at prime less three". He also added: "If I go to Virginia, with the free trade deal, it will cost me $6.50 an hour for labour, and with the exchange rate right now, here, it is costing me $10.50. Since Canada is going to remove its tariffs because of the Prime Minister's Free Trade Agreement, I will be able to supply the Canadian market with the furniture I make down in the states". Then I asked him: "What will happen to your workers, then?" He said: "Well, it is either moving or going bankrupt because I would no longer be able to stand competition." That is the kind of help or the kind of agreement that is supposed to create jobs, jobs and jobs all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, since this debate began, I must confess that I was quite concerned about the agreement. But the more I look at it and discuss it with people from various sectors, the more 1 am convinced that my leader did the right thing.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to two Liberal Members today with great interest. We have heard today what they are against, not what they are for. Both stood up and both ran off a string of what they perceive to be problems, but they offered no solutions. The Hon. Member who just spoke is a

March 18, 1988
Supply
former provincial cabinet Minister, He did not speak the way he is speaking today when he was in the provincial Government.
I want to cover a couple of items about which he spoke. First, the tax on softwood lumber. The agreement was reached between the provinces and the federal Government on how to best approach this problem. There was a choice. Either the 15 per cent tax would be imposed in the United States and the Americans would collect it to pay off their deficit from our provincial resources or the provinces would receive the money for their coffers.
The Hon. Member is complaining about the tax. That tax money is going back to the provincial Government to be used in the many ways the province can use it. Five provinces have now settled the adjustment procedure on that particular tax. We are close to an agreement with the Province of Quebec.
The Hon. Member fails to mention that we solved the problem of U.S. logs coming into Canada and being processed by Quebec mills which no longer have a source of timber close to them. To keep them alive, they import logs from the United States, dress them here and send the finished lumber back. We have made arrangements that the tax is not on that lumber. He has failed to mention all these things.
The Hon. Member then talked about the furniture dealer who will move to the United States because of the free trade agreement. He failed to ask this fellow about the benefits his workers receive from the Canadian and provincial Governments and whether they will receive those in the United States. When he goes to the United States, he will find that he has to start paying the full cost for a health plan for the workers and he will have to pay the full cost of pension plans. He will have to look at the productivity he gets from those people as compared to the workers in Canada. He will then find that he has a hell of a good deal here in Canada. That same furniture dealer will be able to penetrate a much bigger market in the United States with those tariffs gone. That is the challenge for him, and I believe that he can accept that challenge.
I would be willing to wager that I travel around the country on the free trade agreement a lot more than the Hon. Member does. I find that the more people understand what the free trade agreement says, the more acceptance there is.

It is the same thing in the province of Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left to respond to the allegations of the Minister.

When I was Minister of Finance in Quebec, I had in my office one day all the presidents of the pulp and paper companies asking for government intervention to help them in a very
difficult situation. The Canadian dollar was trading at $1.04 U.S. We managed-


Claudy Mailly: What has that got to do with it?


Raymond Garneau: The fact was that the Canadian dollar was not only at par but was worth more than the U.S. dollar. The U.S. market was in great difficulty.


John Horton McDermid: You don't look that old.


Raymond Garneau: It was in 1973-74. It is very good for the Government to talk about the capacity of the Canadian industry to compete with the United States when the dollar is at 70 cents or 72 cents. If and when the Canadian dollar is at par with the American dollar, all those companies that are kneeling and praying before the Government, saying that the free market should rule, will be lined up saying that the Government should do something about that. The Government will not be able to do anything because of the trade agreement it has signed. Every action of the Government will open the door to a countervailing duty.
[ Translation]


John Horton McDermid: That is not true!


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, those who say that it is not true... I may not be that old, but I am old enough to have seen both sides of the coin, which may not be the case for the Hon. Member although we may be about the same age.
What I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that in the case of softwood lumber-because this was the Hon. Member's main question-the Canadian Government bowed to pressure, it went down on its knees before the Americans, saying: Yes, Mr. Reagan, yes, Mr. President, go ahead and tax us. And then they went down to see him, suggesting: Look now, if we levied that tax ourselves, if we went into that selfflogging exercise, would you be satisfied? And the Americans answered: Yes, you are good boys. And Mr. Reagan added: "We had a drink together in Quebec, we sang at the Grand Theatre; didn't we?" Yes, Mr. President, wildo. And they slapped that tax, and now provinces are stuck with it. They are compelled, forced to go and negotiate their stumpage fees down in the States. The Minister, I am not quite sure how deeply he is involved in that, but if he could find a solution so that our lumber industry in Quebec can stop paying that tax, to whomever they may have to pay it, and be in a position at least to compete because now with the rise in the exchange rate, the value of the tax is 23 per cent! It is partly rebated if stumpage fees increase, and the requirement to do forestry work increases. Do you know who is going to rule on that, Mr. Speaker? The White House. Now Washington will be telling Quebec: "Look boys over there, Mr. Bourassa and company, your stumpage fees are too low. That does not make sense, you are hurting us. Raise them some more." And they will come back and raise them somewhat, and then they will ask the
March 18, 1988

gentlemen in Washington: "under forestry work, 9 cents, 10 cents per small tree planted, is that acceptable to you?
If the answer is no, they will have to start over again. And finally, even at 14 cents per small tree, there will still be 3 per cent left on the Brian Mulroney tax.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers).


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). It makes me laugh when I hear those Liberals who are responsible for everything that ails our country. You know, we could talk indefinitely about Montreal East. I was born there. Our family of 15 children lived in Montreal East, in my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I could talk about that area for a long time, Mr. Speaker. Conditions have been deteriorating for twenty years in Montreal East. All plants in that area were put out of business, but that happened under the Liberal federal Government. Of course, one of those most responsible is the Member who represents the eastern part of Montreal, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who moved today's motion. He was there and he is one of those most responsible for the terrible mess Montreal East is in. Today, he moved a motion condemning the Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, I can prove it, and I hope Canadians will realize what I mean: In four years, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie rose in his seat three times. Three times in four years!


Bernard Valcourt: From when until when?


Édouard Desrosiers: And, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, when he did rise he talked about housing. He never mentioned the closing of three refineries in Montreal East, where hundreds of thousands of jobs where lost. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie never rose in the House to tell his colleagues, other Members and Ministers: "There is a problem in Montreal East. We are losing our jobs. Men with families don't know where to turn. We have had all kinds of problems. Plants are moving away from Montreal East to Ontario." The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie never rose in his seat. He never had the courage to tell his Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau: Mr. Prime Minister, you are destroying Montreal East. What are you going to do for men with as many as 10, 12 or 15 children to support?
Mr. Speaker, the population of Montreal East, as you know, is mainly made up of low income earners, people who need support and help from the Government. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) never stood up for them. No! He kept silent, submissively following his Prime Minister. Besides, he always got elected because he rode on his Prime Minister's coat-tails.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, you know that hearing those people who are responsible for the present situation makes me laugh. You read yourself in the CREEM report, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Pichette and all the unions, the employers and all the people concerned suggested that things have been deteriorating for 20 years in Montreal East.
This appears clearly in the report and you read it, Mr. Speaker.
We were elected because the Canadian citizens were fed up. It was the same thing in my area, Mr. Speaker. My fellow citizens in Montreal East saw the light and realized they had enough of those absentee Members of Parliament and Ministers. They never listened ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of Order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I knew how little inclined to openness the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was but what about the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve... I would like to know to which page of the Pichette report he was referring when he said "20 years". Because you are never in the House I must remind you that we must speak the truth here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! This is more a question of debate than a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers).


Édouard Desrosiers: You know, Mr. Speaker, these people hate to be disturbed and they try to interrupt just to play for time. We know that the House of Commons costs a lot of money. Despite of that they are loafing around all day long. It costs a fortune to run the House and I do not see why we should lose its valuable time.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, in Montreal East and elsewhere people realized that radical change was needed. They voted for a change and I can understand why the Liberals are hurt. It is terribly painful.
But things change in this country. Canada never did so well since we came to power.
I represent the riding of Hochelaga

Maisonneuve, Mr. Speaker, and I am very pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) lived there for a while.
My Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, is the greatest Prime Minister ever and he will go down in history as such.
As a former resident in my riding, the Prime Minister is well aware of the situation and I can assure you that we spared no effort.
Easter time reminds me, Mr. Speaker, if I may, that just like Jesus who chased the money changers out of the temple, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of

March 18, 1988
Supply
Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) are chasing out much evil across the country. Canadian skies are getting brighter and we will know better days. We have always been left in the shade.
As you know, being a Liberal is like embracing a religion or living in a religious sect. In their mind, no one but a Liberal can lead the Government, it is almost like a dogma. But let me tell you that there are good Liberals and bad ones. Some of them can be good. But a Liberal, Mr. Speaker, is in a sense a different human being. They are different. They act somewhat strangely, they tend to be liars and are wicked people. They showed their wickedness again today, considering how much we have done for Montreal East since 1984. What they say makes no sense at all.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few examples of our involvement. First of all, there was a company, Daoust, a skate manufacturer on Hochelaga Street in my riding, which had hardly some 40 employees left. If I am not mistaken, it went bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, a high-technology company was immediately set up in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in Montreal East, Entreprises Fournel. This company created hundreds of jobs and it just started. It invested hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, and the Government of Canada also supported this business with some grants.
I hear the Liberals talk about Vickers, Mr. Speaker, and all the journalists... There are bad journalists, and there are good ones, as you know some yourself. Some are good, some are not as good, some say the truth and others say nothing at all. Some of them never talk about the Conservative Party. If they were to say that we do good things, they would recoil in embarrassment! There is a red tinge to their reporting, Mr. Speaker. I was listening earlier on to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is not a bad fellow, and he has a certain amount of talent but he is simply with the wrong people. He does have quite a lot going for him.
What he said earlier, Mr. Speaker, is that someone had said this or that on Le Point. But Le Point, Mr. Speaker, and the CBC to my knowledge, are still managed by a bunch of Grits.
I have not heard of Tories being put in there. The Grits had long term mandates and we still have to bear with them. So not always hearing good news about the Conservative Party is something to be expected. The truth can be scary for some people.
In Montreal East, Mr. Speaker, Bombardier was put back on track. In April, the 2,000 employees will be back to work for several years. This is a corporation which the Liberal Party had completely neglected. There were hardly a few hundreds employees left. Now the 2,000 employees are going to work for Bombardier which is located in Montreal East. I hope that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie knows at least that Bombardier is located in Montreal East and that the Canadian Government has just invested $100 million to have those 2,000 employees work in that company.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) had just announced that $275 million would be granted to Montreal East. The Liberals have never done that. When have they done anything for Montreal East? Never! And we are talking about $275 million. But now, they try to make us believe that there is not much new money in these $275 million. They are such liars, Mr. Speaker, that they are liable to say anything. Those $275 million, Mr. Speaker, are invested in projects which are part of scheduled programs. It's true. Those millions could also be earmarked for the whole region, but the Minister gave an order and said: No, you are going to take that money and set it aside for Montreal East. That's what he did. Therefore it is new money, Mr. Speaker. They say that the money was already there, but it wasn't there for Montreal East, it was there for the whole Quebec region. But they are afraid to say it.
We are told that the Minister has just announced the allocation of $5 million in totally new money. I hope the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is aware of that fact. There are $35 million in new money for Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, talking about Vickers, I would like to explain something that Canadians may not understand because they don't know. We hear time and again on television, on the radio, everywhere, that Vickers is going to shut down, that Vickers has shut down, that Vickers is closing shop. It is a pack of lies, Mr. Speaker. Vickers operates at 85 per cent, that is its whole industrial part. But reporters dare not say it, because they are too embarrassed, and the Liberals even less. There is a small portion of Vickers, known as the marine section, Marine Industries, that is now owner of the three dockyards, Davie-Lauzon near Quebec City, Marine Industries in Sorel, and Vickers in Montreal. It decided that shipbuilding would be carried out in Quebec City, and, although it is not cut and dried yet, it will be sharing out the work. But the Vickers plant in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, works at full capacity. We make all the submarines for the U.S., Mr. Speaker. We do that in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, at the Vickers plant. The National Defence Department just announced the allocation of a contract for millions of dollars for the production of armoured vehicles. Again, this is not in Montreal West, but in Montreal East, at the Vickers plant, Mr. Speaker. We will make armoured vehicles for National Defence. We just gave millions again!
Mr. Speaker, from 1984 to 1987, under the Conservative Government, 104,000 new permanent jobs were created in Montreal. Under the Liberals, from 1980 to 1984, 4,000 jobs were lost in Montreal East only. From 1984 to 1987 ...


An Hon. Member:: Yes, that's true.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, more jobs have been created ... Listen to that, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you should know that in case someone would ask you. From 1984 to 1987, more jobs have been created in Montreal than in Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland, Finland. Isn't that great!
March 18, 1988


An Hon. Member:: Just in Montreal!


Édouard Desrosiers: In Montreal only.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we hear the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, the self-appointed champion of all the causes ... I don't know if you have noticed, but as of the moment he sat in the Opposition, he discovered he had a special skill; he rises on any issue. Just about everybody and everything. Women. Orphans. He is involved in almost every fight, but he achieves nothing because he sits in the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, when you are in Opposition, you are not in power. I know that at some point he had created a sort of Committee for the survival of Montreal East. The idea was great, but I thought it was somewhat daring on the part of a man who was responsible for the mess created in Montreal East in the first place and who can find both the time and means-it takes someone with some kind of gall to create a Committee for the survival of Montreal East when you are totally responsible for Montreal East to go to pot. It is frightening! It is unbelievable!
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a Government which listens to Canadians, and I do not mean only those from the Montreal area. I am talking about the Montreal area because my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is situated in Montreal East. If I have a little more to say about the situation there, it is because it is close to my heart. The constituents I happen to meet are well aware of what the Conservative Government is doing for them. They were having hardship. They had been completely abandoned for 20 years by various Liberal Governments. Completely abandoned. Mr. Speaker, people in my riding tell me: I could never get to see my Member of Parliament. It took me six years before I could meet him and it in a passage way. He was never available, always too busy. He had too many deals to take care of, beside looking after his riding and Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to show you a little table to demonstrate to you and our fellow Canadians... A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words. So is a table. In the area of job creations, Mr. Speaker, between 1980 and 1984, under a Liberal Government... I hope that the camera will make a close-up of this. I will not bother you too long, gentlemen, and I know that you can make a nice close-up of my little table, so that all Canadians can see. Here, under a Liberal Government, from 1980 to 1984, job creation. Zero in on this, a little black line which exceeds a little the normal line. From 1984 to 1987, see the beautiful and fine square. It is a pity it is not blue; they used black, I do not know why. Maybe because it will show better on T.V.
Mr. Speaker, we have to tell the facts to Canadians, and these are the facts. You have the Conservative Government on one side and the Liberal, the red Government on the other.
Supply
Today, Mr. Speaker, Canadians must know the truth and I thank the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) for introducing such a motion. It is a pleasure for us because it gives us the opportunity to inform Canadians, to tell them the truth, to show them what our extraordinary ministers have done. We have a government like no government has ever been in Canada and the economy has never been so vibrant. When I visit my riding, Mr. Speaker, everybody tells me: "Mr. Desrosiers, the election of the Conservatives has been a boon. It is wonderful! Things never looked so good". Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I should conclude my remarks. I will yield the floor to other speakers. Before I sit down, I simply want to tell you how proud I am to be a Conservative, how proud I am to have as Prime Minister the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and to have this extraordinary group of competent Ministers who are so generous for Canadians. I am proud to belong to this Parliament and you can be sure I will be back after the next elections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will begin questions and comments with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You just saw why everybody in Montreal is dissatisfied. You just saw why after three and a half years of Conservative Government, the Official Opposition must put a motion forward to force the Government to deal with matters of interest to Montreal. You just saw a vivid illustration of Michel Vastel's editorial on the Lackeys. Now, you can understand why the Government didn't choose that kind of people as ministers or as parliamentary secretaries. You just saw nobody speaks for Montreal. You have just seen why Mayor Dore is furious at the federal Government's attitude, why Laurent Picard, who is not a Liberal and who has been commissioned by this Government to study matters related to Montreal, said that the Conservative Government has abandoned not only Montreal East, but all of Montreal. You have just seen the incompetence and inaction of a Member who does not even know his own riding. How can he talk about Vickers? He knows very well that Jean-Guy Beaubien, president of the union at Vickers, calls him the "Parc Lafontaine pee-wee". He has no contact with the grass-root people, he prefers to stay in Laval. You can see why Mr. MacDonald, a competent man, a Minister in Quebec, said he was tired of being taken for a fool, tired of that crazy talk from the Conservative Government? When the Hon. Member for Hochelaga (Mr. Desrosiers)-and I could say the former Member for Hochelaga because I can tell you that he is finished as a member and he is not in the House very often anyway- when he says that, according to the the Pichette Report, his Government gave $35,210 million, I wonder why he did not fight if he had really talked to his voters and knew their needs because the major problems are in Hochelaga and Montreal East. I am not asking him to fight here because when you are in power you fight from within your caucus if you are strong enough. That is the reason why I only made three speeches as he said earlier. When you are in power you

March 18, 1988
Supply
fight in your caucus. Why fight? The Member did not raise his finger to make sure that workers at Vickers in Montreal East get a pre-retirement package.
And if the Member knew his voters and had followed the recommendations made by the survival Committee, if he had talked to people at Bombardier, he would know that they unanimously wanted the Government to make arrangements for a pre-retirement package and these funds should mainly have gone to people in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I would also like to know where he was when the fight was going on, when the people at Bombardier wanted to see the orders for locomotives the former member Serge Joyal was able to get without having to organize demonstrations on Parliament Hill. Was he spending too much time in Laval, where he lives, instead of taking care of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve?


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, you can see how nasty those Liberals can be! First of all, I do not live in Laval but in Montreal East. Secondly, to answer the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who asked me whether I had fought for Bombardier workers, I did nothing else. That is all I did and I can tell him that any action was the result of my intervention and that of Conservative Members from Montreal East. There are four of us. That is why our Prime Minister, our Minister and all other members of the Cabinet replied. We did not bail out Bombardier just for the fun of it!
I want to tell the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, first of all, that I find him very arrogant when he says I was not given an appointment as minister or parliamentary secretary, and I should explain why. Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, the Conservative Government represents people from all walks of life. This is a first in Canadian history. Within the Government, all disciplines, even the performing arts, are represented. That has never happened before. In the House of Commons we now have two members of the Artists' Union, Madam Deputy Speaker and myself. There are accountants, lawyers, architects, veterinarians ... For the first time in our history, the Conservative Government truly represents our society. I have nothing against lawyers, but I can tell you that, formerly, almost all Members were lawyers. Until a few years ago, there were only lawyers, and perhaps they did not always realize what it meant to be poor. Luckily, today this Conservative Government is represented by a lot of people from every discipline, and this is for the better for our Canadian citizens.
As you know, the petty attacks by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, Mr. Speaker, do not change the truth. I realize it is hurting them. But the truth is we were not responsible for destroying Montreal East, they were. The Liberal Party caused Montreal East to have horrendous problems. This is like a jigsaw puzzle. And our Conservative Government is now picking up the pieces one by one, putting the puzzle back together. But that puzzle they destroyed, and this is my point to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-
Marie. He should be ashamed of putting forward that motions that suggest the Conservative Government did nothing for the Montreal area. Mr. Speaker, this is tremendous cause for shame. I hope he will go to confession-the time is right, since Easter is coming.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, our colleague has just mentioned that the Union des artistes is represented in the House, and he is a member, I believe. In that case I would like to know what representations this Hon. Member has made in his own caucus with regard to matters which concern artists very closely. Some Members in his own caucus have argued for granting artists recognition under the Income Tax Act. There has been talk of maintaining ...
-capital cost allowance that would allow for the financing of films. I would like to know what he did with respect to the film distribution Bill, as a Member and an artist in Quebec and, particularly in Montreal, where the major film industry is, where the Le Declin de I'Empire americain saw the light of day, and was so wonderful, and Un Zoo La Nuit, and all the other films that are produced through incentive measures and risk capital. What did he say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to promote a film industry in Quebec and in Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), I should say that that I do not recall the Hon. Member raising that matter in his speech. However, I will grant him 30 seconds, if he wants...


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to say that I discharged my duties as a member and I sat with the Hon. Member on the Communications and Culture Committee. I think that we have done interesting work with regard to copyright and many other issues. However, this is not the subject matter under consideration today since we are dealing with the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart). I think I will stick to that.
However I will be pleased to answer the points she raised in other circumstances. Today, I think that we should consider the motion of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mrs. Dewar).


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder this afternoon whether there is a little bit of the spirit of Friday or is it some sense of theatre in this House? Certainly, some of the debate has not been entirely on the issues of the motion. I think we all at times like to hear great praise of friends and people we know, but I think what
March 18, 1988

we would really like to address this afternoon is an economic question.
I guess some of the concerns we have are in terms of the economy, particularly. I think it is interesting that the opposition motion should be brought forward at this time because it is symbolic that we are celebrating the anniversary of what has been known as the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City. To the dismay of many Irish people in this country, St. Patrick's Day is not just the celebration of Ireland and St. Patrick any longer but the planting of the seeds of an agreement that is really going to undermine our country in the future. I guess that is something about which we are really concerned.
When we look at the economic policies of the Government, and watch what has happened, the erosion that has taken place, and when we talk about the industrial complex in Canada, we are concerned. We have seen time and time again in study after study the need for readjustment programs. If the Government is serious about implementing this dreadful trade agreement, then we should be looking at readjustment programs. We have a Government which two years ago promised adjustment programs for older workers, but we still have not seen anything like it. Every time we ask a question in the House, we are told: "It is coming, it is coming". Two years later it is still coming. I am concerned about that because I represent a community that has been deeply hurt by many of these things.
Lapp Insulators was bought by an American company. The employees of that company begged the Government to look at their financial plan and their business plan. They said they could continue to operate but, if a foreign company came in, they predicted that in two years the company would be closed. What has happened is that the company is closed. The Government had its American friends come in and buy the company, then two years later it was closed. The Americans eliminated their competition, and now they are back in the United States filling under-utilized space in the United States. I think that kind of thing is very serious. I hear the Government say it has confidence in Canadian workers. I certainly have not seen it demonstrate any confidence in Canadian workers when it will not even allow them to to put in a fair bid and have it recognized as such. That is exactly what happened in Hamilton.
I have also been looking at what has happened in the Firestone plant. We had exactly what the Hon. Member said earlier, the most efficient workers and the cost of unit labour less than the United States, but the decision was made to fill an under capacity factory in the United States. These are the kinds of things that really do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).
Supply


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of sympathy for the Hon. Member who is new among us, but, she started by complaining about the lack of relevancy. However, from the start, she has been talking about Hamilton when I believe the issue before us is Montreal East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a question of privilege, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: The Hon. Member wanted to correct her colleague, but we are not talking about Montreal East. The motion is about the whole Montreal area. Had she been following the debate, she would know better.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, yes I am talking about Hamilton, but it is because the situation in Hamilton is quite similar to the one in Montreal East. It is very important to know that.

It concerns me somewhat when we look at our cities and we see the bankruptcy of ideas and vision of the Government when it does not see the ability to put an economic strategy in place in order to have all our cities healthy. It is important that we look at what has caused some of these decisions. Many of the causes have been the result of government policy.
We have a Government that looks only at what the markets will be and at what the bottom line will be. It is using workers, people and communities as commodities that can be moved around. This is not the kind of vision that we have for the country or for the cities of our country.
When I talk of Hamilton today, I talk of Hamilton from the point of view of what has happened to workers in that community. I talk of Montreal East and the Montreal region when I visit my relatives and friends. It is the city of my birth. I understand the great transition that has gone on in Montreal and the terrible things that have happened to it. They have happened because this is an industrialized sector of our economy. This is true whether we talk of Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto or Hamilton. This is an industrialized sector of our economy that is being totally eroded. We are entering a trade agreement that guarantees there will be more erosion. This is of great concern to all Canadians.
When we look at this we must recognize what has happened in Quebec. I was interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Member who spoke before me when he referred to the paper industry. I am old enough to remember when the dollar was a dollar and the pulp and paper industry was in very deep trouble. I remember when the American markets became very delicate. We know that there is now research going on in the

March 18, 1988
Supply
pulp and paper industry that will make it possible for the deep south to be able to manufacture a lot of its paper if the market is such and as our dollar is going up. The present Government refuses to lower the interest rates. We know that another Canadian market is in jeopardy.
When we talk about the trade agreement that is supposed to be so good for the East End of Montreal and for the manufacturing parts of our country, what we really need to talk about is what are the implications of the trade agreement. The implications of the trade agreement seem to get lost when the Government debates that subject. The Government attempts to defend it by saying that we will have access to the American market. It goes both ways. We have very little access to that market and there are heavy transportation costs involved. The Americans wish to be treated by national standards in our financial institutions. It is not reciprocal. It will put the whole industrialized part of our economy in jeopardy.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this motion is very difficult. It is not really the motion which is difficult, but the situation. The economic problems in Montreal East are not new; they go back ten years.


Gabriel Fontaine: Twenty years!


Marion Dewar: We have been going through a major crisis in the last ten years. In my opinion, both the Liberal Government and the Conservative Government are to blame for this situation.
Indeed, the energy policy of Trudeau Government is largely to blame for the disappearance of our petrochemical industry. The Liberal Members were silent at that time, including the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
In 1984, the Conservatives took over and disaster struck, beginning with the disappearance of the Gulf refinery. In Montreal East, there are now 22,000 unemployed and 9,400 welfare recipients, and there have been 7,500 lay-offs in five years. Many committees were created. The Prime Minister appointed a Minister responsible for Montreal. The province, the city of Montreal, the employers and the unions all worked together to find solutions to the employment problem. The city of Montreal delivered by contributing $90 million, and so did the province of Quebec by promising $106 million, but, disappointingly, the federal Government only allocated $35 million dollars in new money. However, the Government is generous in its hesitations. For instance, the Government promised a space agency in the throne speech. On February 23, the Minister responsible said that the agency would be set up in 1988. On March 10, Mr. de Cotret stated that there would be no agency. On March 16, the Prime Minister announced in Baie-Comeau that there would indeed be one.
I gave this example in order to illustrate the lack of courage of the Government and its inability to make decisions. The same thing happens practically with every issue: banking centres, railways, etc.
The 31,400 unemployed in Montreal East are waiting for some action from the Government, and not for more pussyfooting. Montrealers want the prosperity back in their area and they do not want to be mesmerized by election promises. This indecisiveness on the part of the Government is bad for private investments. The Government has to make decisions, announce them and carry them out. The Prime Minister said that the development of Montreal is a priority. We ask him today, on behalf of the 31,400 unemployed, to prove it by making the necessary decisions.
It is not difficult to understand how depressed the unemployed are.

It is the type of thing that takes the spirit of a community. It says to people: "You really do not count. I will talk to my friends. I will make my deals with the business community but I am not going to worry about what is happening. I will make speeches so that they will elect me, but I really do not have any sense of commitment to say that these people count and are valuable".
This type of thing is happening right across the country. Millions of dollars are being spent on a sales pitch to say that we are getting into a good trade agreement with the United States. When we have set up panels and have asked for government Members to participate, they refuse to show up. During International Women's Week we had such a panel. We could not get one Conservative Member to appear on the panel. I say "we" collectively as Canadians. I am not speaking as a politician now, I am speaking as a member of the community of Canada.
The Government is allowing one of the greatest cities in the country to be undermined because it has no economic strategy. When we consider the type of programs that have gone on as well as the recommendations of a certain committee's report, we see that the recommendations are strong and valid. The recommendations in the report were formed as a result of listening to a cross-section of the community of Montreal East. When we look at those recommendations, we see that they are a valid strategy for economic development. They look at the skills that are in that community, and at how the future of that community can develop. They take the resources that are there and can be implemented. But there has to be some government help and commitment.
One sees the type of commitment that has been given by the City of Montreal. Certainly the Mayor of Montreal has made it a priority. He recognized the high level of unemployment and how important it is to get those people to work. He asked for readjustment programs for older workers which the Government kept saying that it was going to do, but it has refused to do. When one looks at the commitment given by the Government of Quebec and then one sees a measly $35 million from the federal Government for an area that is in dire need, it
March 18, 1988

is a disgrace. When people say that they have a commitment to the future of this country, we certainly have to look at the consequences of their policies.
When one hears Mr. Parizeau and other people talk about how good the free trade agreement is for the Province of Quebec, it is very important for those of us who feel strongly about having a country that is total to recognize the great danger of that trade agreement the Province of Quebec, as far as tying its economy into the American economy and ignoring the western part of Canada. It is important that we look at the long term effects.
I am not sure the present Government has the capacity of being able to look at the long term. It always seems to be looking at short term ad hoc decisions. For example, today there is a space agency, tomorrow there is not; the next day perhaps we do, but we are not quite sure where we are going to have it. If we take those things seriously and look at the long term for the building of this nation, and building it with a strong economy, we must look at what is happening in the east end of Montreal and recognize that the erosion taking place there will be even greater if there is not some built-in infrastructure to protect that economy now. It is very serious.
I know there has been a lot of hilarity in the Chamber this afternoon. If we were one of the 31,000 who are unemployed, we would not be laughing quite as hard and making such fun and jokes at each other. It is very serious. This part of the city had good manufacturing, textile workers, refineries, and massive employment. Now there is a whole readjustment that has to take place.
If this is the manner in which this Government is addressing readjustment, then goodness help us all when we get into a program with 500,000 jobs going down the drain. We have to look seriously at what is happening. This is a good motion to have before us. It a microcosm of what we will be looking at across the country in the future. If we are not willing to put adjustment programs in place, if we are not willing to look at the communities and what the grass roots skills are, and what their development is, then we will not be willing to look at any future economic strategy.
One can talk about getting "this in my riding, or this in the next riding", but I hope that some day we will get a New Democratic Government that understands what economic strategy and planning is to put some priorities on where people can work; to put some priorities on what is possible for people to have dignity and equality of life; to recognize the heritage and the legacy that we have in the City of Montreal, where the east end of that city is going down the drain and the Government is blinking its eyes and saying that it is not sure and it is changing its mind every day.
It seems to me that we must look at an economic strategy, and listen to committees which have made some very sensible recommendations, which have come from the grass roots, whereby people would have the ownership of their own future. If the Government were willing to implement some of those
Supply
recommendations, we would all live better, be healthier, and see the east end of Montreal come back with the old vitality that it had in days of yore.


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


Gabriel Fontaine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who anticipates that my comments will be interesting. That probably shows his good taste. I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar) who, in passing, took a long time before actually getting to talk about Montreal and Montreal East.
The Hon. Member told us that it would take a strategy, a sensible strategy, a strategy for the future. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that these Members are constantly using rhetorics about everything, and are always suggesting theories and strategies, and speaking about the future and sensible things to do. But from a practical point of view, where were these members of the Socialist Party when we passed Bill C-22 which created 1,300 jobs in Montreal?
That legislation concerns Montreal and also Montreal East. It deals with practical matters, because it provides for a capital investment of $700 millions that will create 1 300 jobs. And you did not support the Government position on that issue. I am also wondering about your stand today on the Free trade issue. How can you argue ... I wish you would take some advise from your colleague, Madam. How can you claim to be a spokeperson for Quebec while the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, the Opposition leader, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, big guns such as Government Ministers in Quebec and also big guns from the Opposition party in the Province, not to mention the 57 conservative members of Parliament from Quebec who know that Quebec entrepreneurs sell currently for 20 billion dollars a year to the United States ... We want to secure a market for those entrepreneurs, and you have the gall to oppose Free trade, and even more the gall to tell Quebecers:
Well, are you going to lose markets worth $20 billion by refusing access to the U.S. market? That is what you are doing with free trade. You are telling petro-chemical industries in Montreal that you do not care about the 15,000 jobs that exist right now and could be increased if we increase our exports to the United States. You fail to recognize that refineries will considerably increase their turnover. Right now, these refineries spend perhaps $2 a barrel to refine the crude oil that they import. Then, they must spend 80 cents a barrel to export their product to the U.S. Are you aware that the Free Trade Agreement will lower their production costs by practically one hundred per cent? Are you serious when opposing free trade? Because, in fact, you are against our refineries selling their value added products to the Americans. Is that how serious you are? Then you should be a little more practical.

March 18, 1988
Supply
Are you also serious when you ignore the major engineering consulting firms located in the city of Montreal? Don't you know that Montreal has three of the five largest engineering consulting firms in the world? And you want to deny them access to the U. S. market in the future? Do you want the red tape to go on at the American border to prevent Canadian professionals from working in that country? Is that what you want? Canadians have to know that this is what you want.
And I will now ask you: You said that our Government only had short term solutions. It shows a lack of seriousness on your part and that of your Party and, particularly in your case, an obvious lack of knowledge of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret having to interrupt the Hon. Member, but there are three other Hon. Members who wish to speak.

I will give the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) who may wish to comment on the comments of the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Marion Dewar: The Hon. Member has put many statements and not very many questions, but I will attempt to respond to the statements. One thing is really important to look at. When looking at the economic development strategy, and looking practically, the Hon. Member obviously does not know that in relation to the infrastructure of cities across this country, particularly in Montreal, a study has been done that shows with investment from three levels of government, 64,000 jobs can be created. Those jobs certainly would help.
Sometimes I feel that the free trade agreement has not been read by members of the Government, because the Hon. Member does not seem to understand that in the free trade agreement there is nothing to prevent countervail against Canadian exports. I wish the government Members would understand that there is no protection against countervail.
When the Opposition asked for an amendment to Bill C-22 to guarantee research jobs in Quebec, the Government said: "No, just trust us". We all know where the synergy or the critical mass of research by pharmaceutical companies is done. It will not happen because the Government did not have the strength to demand it in the agreement.
Perhaps the Hon. Member should take a quiet moment some time, when he is not making statements in the House, and read a little about the agreement. He would find some interesting information.


Gabriel Fontaine: You don't like my statements.


Marion Dewar: I love your statements. What we really need to do is inform ourselves a little more. If he did so, he would find out that maybe the province of Quebec will suffer very seriously.
I feel that our role is to try to protect the future of the country before the present Government gives it all away.
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I must say to the Hon. Member that her speech about Montreal was very weak and that her colleague who is responsible for Quebec, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), must have misinformed her on the subject. It is clear that the NDP does not defend the interests of Montreal.
Since we are talking about Montreal, I will ask the same question: If an NDP Government were elected tomorrow, would it give the space agency to Montreal?


Claudy Mailly: Half in Montreal and half in Ottawa.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Secondly, would an NDP Government do as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre said concerning the frigate contract that has been entirely awarded to New-Brunswick? Would it reopen the contract and give two frigates to Quebec? What would it do? These are two important issues on which the NDP must take a clear-cut position because there is already a contradiction. The questions therefore are the following: Would you support Montreal for the space agency? Secondly, would you reopen the frigate contract?


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think that our leader has been very clear on where a space agency would go. Certainly there has been no upset in our caucus on the discussion. He has been very clear that he thought the space agency should go to Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marion Dewar: I listened to him. I have confidence in my leader.
I guess what concerns me very much is that when we are making economic decisions, how do we make them? Do we make them on who has the loudest voice in their riding or on what is best for the country in total? I think it is important that we start to look at that.


Bernard Valcourt: What about Cassidy?


Marion Dewar: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has clearly and publicly apologized. He said that he made a very bad mistake. When he announced it, it was certainly not a party policy that the New Brunswick frigates would be moved from New Brunswick to Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marion Dewar: It is not a surprise. Obviously people do not read the newspapers if they have not heard that.


Claudy Mailly: Quit while you are ahead.
March 18, 1988


Marion Dewar: It was quite evident, and he said it 24 hours later.
I think it is really important for us to be looking at where our strengths are in economic development. I think there is a lot of hope for the east end of Montreal. However, the way in which present policies are going, it is being eroded.
Let us look at the amount of unemployment and the people who are on social services. It is all very well for us to make cracks at each other, but in that process the lives of people are brought into question. Montreal East was a very vital community over the years. It was seen as the heaviest, most intense labour and employment sector.
If we cannot bring about a restructuring of that economy, we might as well give up on any kind of economic planning and development. I say that to the Government because it has been very unsuccessful in being able to put anything in place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate will continue with the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, how can we possibly give an overview of such an important question in just a few minutes. First of all, I want to repeat what I have always maintained: it is as a result of the great social conscience of our colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that we could have this debate today. I remember meeting him when he became a Member of Parliament here in Ottawa, although I knew him before. But as of 1979, with the whole team of the Members from Montreal East, in the company and under the leaderchip of Monique Begin, to whom 1 want to pay special homage here, meetings were held every week, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the economy of Montreal East, and this for many years. They even signed letters to the Prime Minister of Canada, and I can assure you it is very unusual for ministers to sign a letter asking for certain things to be done, although we all know the problems we were facing at the time.
So I think the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie does not have to be told by anyone in this House what to do, not by our new-found saviours in the New Democratic Party and not by those who want to attack us. I know and can testify to his record and his concerns.
What troubles me as a Montrealer is a short sentence in an outstanding article by Miville Tremblay, where he says, and I am sorry, but this is the quote: "We certainly no longer expect anything from the federal Government". Another quote: "The Conservatives have not only given up on Montreal East but on the entire city ''.That was a quote from Mr. Picard.
I would like to ask the House to think about this statement, because under Mr. Trudeau's Government, we had Members who were the envy of practically the entire caucus. No one can deny the determination of a Marc Lalonde, a Monique Begin, a Gerard Pelletier, a Serge Joyal and an Andre Ouellet, and I
Supply
refer to their determination to take care of the needs of Montreal. This was going on every week at the meetings of the Quebec Caucus. I was there regularly since I was chairman of the caucus, and I know it was one of our major concerns.
What saddens me is that Members of the House do not understand that there are differences in Canada. Jean Marchand, one of the most dynamic Quebecers, and nobody can deny that, sat in this House and always said that Montreal was the economic heart of the Province of Quebec. It is so different from the other provinces! But in Quebec we know very well that when Montreal is in the doldrums the whole province experiences difficulties.
So that is the purpose of the motion introduced by my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, this is how we try to draw the Government's attention to make decisions.
I know that the world of politics is not for the weak-hearted. There is always some rivalry among the various regions. Only the NDP Members cannot understand that. They are centralizers. With them, everything has to come from Ottawa. This is why their Party will never respond to the aspirations of Quebecers here in Ottawa, because it is a centralizing Party.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the situation is getting serious, and I suggest the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) ought to listen to what I am saying. I am saying that the situation is getting serious when Quebec, the Province of Quebec, the Government of Quebec has to hire a lobbyist to get its fair share of federal contracts. One thing I can tell you is that we did have difficulties during the 1980-84 period, and the economic situation was not all that promising. Yet, in spite of that we never had as many complaints as we have now from people in Montreal. We never did get as many complaints as we are now receiving from people in Montreal East. However, Mr. Speaker, when a provincial government is hiring lobbyists as the Quebec government is doing because it cannot find anyone to uphold the vital interests of Montreal, the problem is indeed very serious.
I would have liked to speak at length of this issue, because I made lengthy preparations and I take my work seriously... However, my colleagues from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, and Laval-des-Rapides discussed that issue extensively. I merely wanted to add that the situation is urgent and that we have to understand what Montreal represents for Quebec. Conditions are not similar in other provinces.
So, I thank you, but we will certainly have more to say on the subject later on, Mr. Speaker. In closing, I would like to mention that some people have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, including friends of the Government, Mr. Peladeau, everybody's friend, a good friend of mine, who went as far as staging a publicity campaign that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the single point about the spatial character of Montreal with the slogan "Montreal, c'est spatial". When will that be understood? Montreal is a space industry center as other regions are automobile industry centers. The space

March 18, 1988
Supply
agency should belong to Montreal. Thanks for being so This House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., patient, Mr. Speaker.	pursuant to Standing order 3(1).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 21, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers