1988-01-20

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, last June 30, on the last sitting day of the session, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) got the co-operation of the Opposition to pass amendments to and extend the life of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This was done on an urgent priority basis to help tens of thousands of farmers get lower interest rates on their bank loans. The latest information is that over 50,000 farmers are insolvent and in serious financial difficulty. This legislation could have helped them in consolidating and refinancing debts on a wide range of agricultural costs.
What has the Minister of Agriculture done to proclaim and implement the legislation, Bill C-78, since he asked for our help on an urgent basis last June? Exactly nothing! This is the same contemptuous attitude he has displayed toward the farm debt crisis since 1984. Seven months after we rushed this legislation through there has still been no action. I call on the Minister to take action and implement this legislation immediately.


HOUSING
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, one reason housing prices and apartment rents in Metropolitan Toronto have sky-rocketed is because population growth has exceeded the apparent supply of land available for residential construction. However, this shortage is more
apparent than real. There is an almost hidden supply of land which could be made available for housing and, ironically, it belongs to three levels of government: municipal, provincial, and federal.
I have in mind land around the head office of none other than the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Armed Forces Base at Downsview, land devoted to the Scarborough Expressway which apparently will not be constructed, and provincially owned land around Pickering expropriated years ago for abortive airport construction.
If we increase the supply of land we can reduce the cost of housing. Surely all Governments concerned should want to initiate such an action to meet this basic human need. I therefore urge that an inventory of government land in Metro be taken and that representatives of all three levels of government confer on the most effective way of distributing it.


OMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPRESENTATIVE FROM FEDERAL ADVISORY PANEL
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Vander Zalm is angry because the Conservatives did not include a British Columbia representative on a federal advisory panel on the effects of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. This is a tragic oversight because many British Columbia workers and industries will be hurt by this deal. We should have had someone on the council who would speak up for our interests.
However, instead of simply blaming the Conservatives Mr. Vander Zalm should take a good part of the blame himself. He was too quick to jump on the free trade band wagon without looking at the disastrous consequences on such industries as fish processing, plywood production, and wine-making. Mr. Vander Zalm is at fault because, instead of looking after British Columbia's interests, he trusted the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a man who has shown all Canadians that he cannot be trusted.

January 20, 1988


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks the seventieth anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. In 1918, following the fall of the Tsarist Empire, the Ukrainian Parliament proclaimed an Independent National Democratic Republic, and based that democracy on the revered freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and human rights.
It was a short-lived democracy as four years later a Russian communist regime conquered the independent state. But the spirit of that freedom has lived on in every Canadian of Ukrainian descent.
1988 also marks the millennium of the introduction of Christianity to Ukraine. It was King Volodymyr, later St. Volodymyr, who, 1,000 years ago, converted his people after learning of the splendid services being offered by the Church of St. Sophia in Istanbul. Upon receiving baptism from the Patriarch of that city he began building the first of Kiev's great churches, the Church of the Tithe.
1988 is an important year for Ukrainians all over the world-the millennium of the introduction of Christianity and the seventieth anniversary of the proclamation of an independent Ukraine.
* *
*


ACID RAIN
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Quebec have every reason to blame Conservative Members, and I am referring particularly to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), the Hon. Member for Sorel and the Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), for their failure to act and for letting the Government close the shipyards.
And this morning-and I must say I support the representations made by my colleague and our environment critic, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-we heard that the UPA, the Quebec farmers' association, is organizing a conference to discuss acid rain.
This will involve participation by scientists from various countries as well as participation by the provincial Government. And now, it seems the federal Government has refused outright to provide any financial or technical assistance.
1 urge Conservative Members from Quebec City and the Hon. Member for Levis to wake up and put pressure on the Government to defend the interests of Quebecers at this
conference and to provide funding to help farmers cope with environmental problems.
* *
*


REFUGEES
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, they live under occupation, they have no recognized homeland, they have no passport, no freedom of movement, no vote, and little hope. They live on the most crowded piece of land on this earth. They are literal wards of the United Nations. They are the homeless Palestinian refugees.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the name "Palestinian" has become synonymous with terrorist and terrorism. This belies the tens of thousands of moderates; men, women, and children, who seek what we enjoy-peace, security, and freedom.
The children born into desolation, growing up in despair, have turned in pitiful frustration to battling a modern army with sticks and stones. Now we hear that food and clothing donated by United Nations relief agencies, Israeli Arabs and Jews, have been blocked from entering the relief centres.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. It is time for this House to express its outrage and indignation.
*
* *


RECYCLING OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PAMPHLETS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: 
January 20, 1988

Meanwhile we are told that the Government is getting set to produce yet another three million pamphlets that it hopes will be attractive to Canadians. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have already been wasted. I say, "Stop the presses". It is time the Government realized that all the glossy pamphlets in the world will not convince Canadians that the Prime Minister has secured a fair deal for Canada.


HOUSING
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in his New Year's message, Cardinal Carter, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toronto, said: "In our city there are many for whom there is no place. As 1987, the International Year of the Homeless comes to a close, our work has just begun".
At the same time Cardinal Carter and the Roman Catholic Church put their money where their mouth is by giving a valuable parcel of downtown Toronto land to Street Haven, a group that provides housing for needy women.
Now that all of the conferences and studies sponsored by CMHC in connection with the International Year of the Homeless have been completed, hopefully the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will provide the same leadership demonstrated so well by Cardinal Carter.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, following the referendum on a fixed link for Prince Edward Island to the mainland, Premier Joe Ghiz has requested an immediate full scale environmental impact study of the options under consideration. However, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) called this request "the kiss of death" because it would delay the project by two years and cost several million dollars.
The Minister's credibility as the environmental conscience of the Government is badly damaged. His desire to make political hay in his home province clouds his judgment and is bad news.
Canadians are shocked. I urge the House to support Premier Ghiz in his call for a full environmental assessment. The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office supports Premier Ghiz and so do, I am sure, most Islanders. The environmental impact assessment is and must be given
first priority in the fixed link project. This is the only sensible way to proceed, and the Minister of the Environment should be ashamed.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Guy St. Juiien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on December 20 last year in Val d'Or, 800 people demonstrated to show their full support for flow-through shares financing of the mining exploration, after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled his tax reform proposals.
Thanks to the support of Minister Savoie, the Government of Quebec has made a two-year commitment to a rate of 133 1/3 per cent.
Mayor Pelletier of Val d'Or said that just because people in the Abitibi area were unemployed, that did not make them outcasts.
Abitibi-Temiscamingue has benefited enormously from this plan, which has caused the unemployment rate to drop from 24.8 per cent in 1984 to 6.3 per cent today. What is at stake is the federal Government's commitment to a rate of 133 1/3 per cent for 1988-89. In 1987 more than $500 million was injected in mining exploration in Quebec.
So far, only Mr. Savoie, the Quebec Minister, has defended the flow-through shares plan in Canada, while our neighbour in Ontario, the provincial Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), has failed to take any action at all.
Today, prospectors in Quebec and across Canada are in great difficulty following the tabling of the tax reform proposals and the recent stock market crash.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue my fight to get the Minister of Finance to revise his position.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to a report released yesterday by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry. It is a report on high level radioactive waste in Canada, entitled "The Eleventh Hour".
This report is one of the results of parliamentary reform. This was a subject that the committee chose to study itself and

January 20, 1988
Oral Questions
one which no Government in the past was ever willing to refer to a committee. It makes many good recommendations, many of which I have been promoting myself in the House over the years. That is why it is a rather good day for me and others who want more attention to be paid to the whole question of nuclear energy in Canada.
In particular I want to call the attention of the House and Canadians to recommendations concerning moving more control over nuclear issues away from the Department of Energy Mines and Resources and toward the Department of the Environment where those issues properly belong.
I also call attention to the final recommendation which states that a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants in Canada should be imposed until the people of Canada have agreed on an acceptable solution for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to the case of the convicted terrorist who was granted landed immigrant status by the Government. I address my concern to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who, 1 believe, must begin to respond to what is now clearly a national concern.
We have the spectacle of a man who received immigrant status despite being sentenced to 17 years for blowing up an aircraft and killing a person, who then walks past our immigration officials at Toronto International Airport despite an alert advance warning. He is then permitted to settle in the community of Brantford for a full year-


Mr. Hawkes:: Question.


Sergio Marchi: -without a comprehensive response by this Government. We now have reports in the press today that indicate this individual has fled that community and gone underground.
Given that the Minister of State for Immigration yesterday in this House substantiated that the Government knew the whereabouts of this individual, can the Prime Minister reassure the House and Canadians that the Government knows the precise whereabouts of this individual as of today? If it does, why has the Government failed to apprehend the individual in order to secure his physical presence at any inquiry and for the protection of Canadians who are growing
increasingly concerned about this man's presence in our country?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the next step in the process for deportation has been taken. Legal proceedings have been initiated. A deportation hearing has been set for next Monday.


NOTICE OF DEPORTATION HEARING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has avoided the first part of my question.


Mr. Andre:: There was no question. That was a speech.


Sergio Marchi: I return to the Minister of State for Immigration. The Minister has confirmed that a deportation inquiry has been scheduled. Has the notice been served without knowing the whereabouts of this individual as of today? Or does the Government know precisely the whereabouts of this individual in Canada at this moment?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member and all Members of this House, and the people of Canada, that our surveillance is continuing. Our surveillance is there, it is continuing, and in light of the fact that proceedings have now been commenced and a hearing set for Monday, I feel any further comments by the Solicitor General at this time would be inappropriate.


LOCATION OF INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I return now to the Solicitor General. Here is a Minister and a Government that established a hearing, established a date, but they are not going to have any clients, because it is one thing to say you are pursuing and surveilling the individual, but Canadians also know that you missed him in Spain, you missed him at the Toronto Airport, and you had to take days to track him down in Brantford. I am asking the Minister very clearly, does the Government at this present moment know the precise whereabouts of this individual? If it does not have the precise whereabouts, can it at least have the integrity and courage to come forward and say so and to tell Canadians what it is going to do about it?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that shortly before 1 entered the House, at approximately five minutes to 2 p.m., I was informed of his whereabouts, where he is. I knew at that time, and we are continuing our surveillance.


QUERY WHETHER DEPORTATION ORDER SERVED ON MR. MOHAMMAD
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Immigration). Earlier, the Minister was rather vague in his statement about deportation proceedings. I would like to ask the Minister more
January 20, 1988

specifically: Has the individual concerned, has Mr. Mohammad been issued a deportation order personally, yes or no?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated clearly that the legal proceedings have been initiated. The man is here illegally as a convicted terrorist. Our primary objective is to get this man out of the country. He either leaves because of the threat of deportation or because of a deportation order issued under due process.


QUERY HOW TERRORIST MANAGED TO ESCAPE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is still being very vague. He tells us that legal proceedings have been initiated. We understand what that means. However, he refuses to tell us outright whether a deportation order has been issued to this individual personally. The question in everyone's mind is, of course: How could a terrorist and convincted criminal disappear under the very noses of the Government authorities who were supposed to be watching him?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, any further remarks would be inappropriate. We are doing everything we need to do to make sure that within due process we are carrying out our wishes, which are to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night we all saw on television how the Israeli government was preventing the delivery of food to Palestinian refugees. Has the Canadian Government informed the Israeli government that this action is totally unacceptable?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the Leader of the New Democratic Party on the food issue. This kind of action is unacceptable.

Food should not be used as a weapon. We have reports from the United Nations that, while starvation is not occurring in those camps, serious hunger is. We hope that all parties will
Oral Questions
agree that food not be used as a weapon in this circumstance or in others.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think that all Canadians will appreciate the answer that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given in the House. In addition to expressing that opinion here in the House of Commons, has the Government of Canada expressed that opinion directly in the form of a protest to the Government of Israel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, the Hon. Member did pose that question earlier and I did not respond to it. We have not delivered that message in the form of a protest to the Government of Israel. The reason for that is that we are holding very active discussions with parties in the Middle East with regard to this situation to try to see if there are ways in which we might contribute to some kind of solution.
I do not want to be misinterpreted as suggesting that a protest may not ensue. I am simply describing a process in which Canada is trying to make its views known to all parties in a way that is as effective as possible. Naturally, I am quite prepared on such an issue of grave importance to offer to the Hon. Member and to others in the House any kind of briefings that they might find helpful as steps to leading Canada to be able to contribute to a resolution of a situation that is rapidly becoming more dangerous and that is involving actions that are becoming less acceptable.


PROPOSAL TO HOLD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, again I express the appreciation of the members of my Party, and I am sure of the people of Canada, for the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. All Canadians, and people throughout the world, including a great many Israelis, obviously, are disgusted by the increasing amount of violence used by the Government of Israel, and I think we should make that very clear, as a people directly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: On the same constructive approach that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken on this, as the Minister knows, the Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres, has made a very specific proposal for an international conference as a useful process for resolving the ongoing problems in this region, a proposal which regrettably has been rejected by the Prime Minister of Israel.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will give public endorsation of this important means of resolving an incredibly unacceptable situation?

January 20, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: We want the violence to end. We want the disregard for the United Nations resolutions to end. We think that the situation is serious and holds the prospect of becoming more serious.
With regard to an international peace conference, it has been our view, and expressed for some time, that a conference of that type acceptable to the parties, which means the Government of Israel, among others, is far and away the preferred course for us to follow. We are looking for ways in which we can encourage all parties who must agree to that process to prefer that type of approach, through conference, to the instability and the violence that are unfortunately spreading in the Middle East.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment, and it has to do with a press release. The people of Prince Edward Island, and indeed all Canadians, were annoyed to witness the spectacle of the Minister of the Environment suggesting that a full environmental assessment of the proposed fixed link to P.E.I. may well have given the project the "kiss of death".
As an Islander who voted "yes" the other day in the plebiscite, and I believe I speak for most Islanders, we did not vote "yes" for a proposed link that could have any environmental effect on the Northumberland Strait, and indeed on the farmers and fishermen of Prince Edward Island.
I wish to ask the Minister today is he prepared to give this House and all Islanders the commitment that a full and comprehensive environmental assessment will be carried out before any proposal for a fixed link, in any form, is considered by the Government of Canada.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a "press release". I presume he meant a press report.
There is no news release from me or from my Department indicating that the federal Government will not apply the most rigorous standards of environmental inquiry to this project. It will be subject to the same rigors of environmental inquiry as any other federal project. No discrimination will be brought to bear on this one in favour of the fixed link for Prince Edward Island merely because that fixed link happens to relate to the province from which the Minister comes.
I give that commitment to him and, through him, to anyone who is interested in the subject.


PROTECTION OF NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT FISHERY
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow that up. It is a release or a story in The Globe and Mail.


Mr. Gormley:: Unimpeachably true.


George Roland Henderson: I am sure that it is unimpeachably true.
I want to be sure of what the Minister is saying here, all Islanders want to be sure, and indeed all Canadians want to be sure because the protection of our environment has to come first and foremost.
The fishery in the Northumberland Strait needs to be protected. We want a full and comprehensive environmental study done immediately-not to delay the project for any great length of time-but the Minister is quoted as saying that, if we do not go ahead with it now, and we have a full environmental impact study or inquiry, it will delay the project until 1992.
There should be a one-year delay to ensure that Canadians and Prince Edward Islanders are guaranteed that there are no adverse effects to our environment, I ask the Minister today, and I ask the Government today, to get on with a full environmental impact study in order that we can get that link across there and we can all be assured that the fishermen, the farmers, and the people of Prince Edward Island are protected.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants a highly selective gathering of half-truths, I commend to him the article in The Globe and Mail this morning on the front page. If he wants the full truth, I refer him to an article on the front page of the Charlottetown Guardian, another great national paper, which quotes me at length as saying that there should be no doubt about this Minister's intention to follow the full federal environmental assessment and review process.
It was one of the conditions which the Premier of Prince Edward Island identified among nine or so others. The Minister of Public Works has given his commitment, as I have, that those conditions will be met. I reconfirm our commitment now. The federal environmental assessment and review process will be followed to the letter in this project as in every other relevant project.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. The Minister has heard the Solicitor General tell this House that Mr. Mohammad entered this country last February fraudulently, in violation of Section 104 of the Immigration Act which authorizes the
January 20, 1988

Government then to deport him, and further that the officials interviewed him on December 9.
My question to the Minister is this. Why did he not direct the officials to arrest Mr. Mohammad on December 9 according to law and hold him for an inquiry under the Immigration Act to bring about his deportation according to law?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we wanted to bring forward a strong case for deportation by having strong documentative evidence. We did that. When we met the candidate or the immigrant in the month of December, it was to advise him in no uncertain terms that we would be advancing with deportation proceedings.
The process is working very, very well, and I do not think that it would be helpful to interfere with that process today.


REQUEST THAT INDIVIDUAL BE ARRESTED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this Government, as the Minister well knows, has detained hundreds of immigrants, hundreds of refugee claimants, every year, on the legal ground that they are unlikely to appear for an inquiry into the question of their deportation.
Given the record of Mr. Mohammad in already, according to the Government, having defrauded the Government, having lied to the Government, why did the Minister give such exceptionally privileged treatment to Mr. Mohammad by refraining from detaining him and, since the Solicitor General has said that he knows where he is, will the Minister agree to arrest and detain Mr. Mohammad today, or does the Government prefer to let Mr. Mohammed go into hiding and escape?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the process is advancing very, very well. It would not be helpful to make any careless comments such as was made by the Leader of his Party yesterday, which has caused distress to an innocent Canadian citizen who now finds himself in jeopardy.
It is possible that some members of the Opposition may now want to talk to the other Chamber about Bill C-84 to see if that could be advanced very quickly. It is possible that some of those who have spoken against it, now want to speak in favour of what we are trying to do, which is to keep terrorists, saboteurs, and spies out of the country.


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


RECYCLING OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PAMPHLETS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns an issue which is literally rubbing Canadians the wrong way.
How can the Prime Minister justify the wasting of $13 million of taxpayers' money to print useless propaganda propping up a bad trade deal and subsequently turning 80 tonnes of this printed propaganda into nothing else but toilet paper?
Does this not show that Canadians do not want to be subjected to this kind of brainwashing? Is this why the Government is resorting to this rearguard action plan?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker-


Ms. Copps:: Take the toilet roll and drop it.


Mr. Tobin:: Pick up the roll and run with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition can dispense with toilet jokes, I can give them some information about this subject, and that is that of course there has been a great demand by Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is no way to wipe the slate clean, and Canadians won't accept it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


ALLEGED CARELESS EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, some of the documents that were recycled as toilet paper may have cost as much as $40 each. Canadians want an answer from the Prime Minister. We are fed up with the devious, two-ply attitude of this Government. Is the Prime Minister willing to make a commitment here and now before the House that he will stop wasting taxpayers' money on useless and frankly ludicrous projects? Yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we would like to dispense with this tissue of lies-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: -and wipe this issue clean by pointing out that there has been a tremendous demand by Canadians for

January 20, 1988
Oral Questions
information related to the free trade agreement. There have been close to 10 million pieces of documentation made available to Canadians.
Naturally we are working hard to ensure that Canadians get the most current information available. Therefore we have been sending out, after the agreement was signed, the up-to-date material on the agreement. In the process about 5.9 per cent of the documentation has been considered obsolete because it has been overtaken by updated information, and it is being recycled, which is the policy of the Government. I am advised by officials that 5.9 per cent on a demand driven item like information on the free trade agreement is considered very low by government standards.
We will continue to attempt to give Canadians the most up-to-date information on the free trade agreement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the announcement in Washington about the resumption of arms deliveries to the Contras and President Reagan's decision to seek additional funding for the Contras, coming only days after the Nicaraguan Government has taken steps, its latest in a series of steps, to comply with the peace process.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House and to tell Canadian people, and for that matter to tell the international community, that Canada finds these actions by President Reagan to be jeopardizing the peace process and to be unacceptable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the decision to which the Hon. Member refers is an American decision respecting an American policy. The policy of the Government of Canada and the analysis by the Government of Canada of the situation in Central America are different.
Our view is that the elemental problems which must be addressed there are problems that are local in nature, and that the most important initiative which has been taken has been the initiative taken by the five Central American Presidents. We are, as I am sure the Hon. Member is, encouraged by the fact that the five Central American Presidents continued to make progress on the Aria's peace plan in their meeting last weekend.
The Member would know that the Presidents asked the Ambassador for Guatemala to Canada to brief officials of my Department on progress and that the five ambassadors
accredited to Canada from those countries have asked for a meeting tomorrow with me in which I look forward to discussing practical ways in which Canada can contribute to the continued movement forward of progress on the plan established by the Central American leaders themselves as to how to bring peace to that region.


ARIAS PEACE PLAN-POSITION OF CANADA
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. Progress is being made and one of the points that President Arias himself, who won the Noble Peace Prize for his leadership in this area, has made absolutely clear is that the United States must not do what President Reagan has announced he will do, if the peace process is to succeed.
If a country like Costa Rica, which is much more beholden and vulnerable to U.S. influence and power than presumably Canada is, can make that kind of statement, why can't the Secretary of State for once get up and say Canada is opposed to continued aid to the Contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is an old debate. There are some who believe that the most effective way for Canada to contribute to peace in Central America is to attack the United States.
We believe, as I indicated clearly in the statement I made on my return from Central America, that that kind of preoccupation is not only fruitless but is counter-productive in terms of the influence that we may be able to have at some point along the process in encouraging compliance by all parties who must in the largest sense comply with the Central American peace plan.
There is a role for Canada to play, a constructive, substantive role. We are not sitting on the sidelines offering advice to other Governments. What we have to do is maintain intact our ability to contribute in distinctive Canadian ways to a peace process in Central America, and that is what we are doing.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Arthur R. Donahoe, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 20, 1988


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ANDRE VIGER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the pleasure of bringing to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of Mr. Andre Viger, wheelchair marathon winner and Olympic champion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
The Ontario Government has made it illegal for supporters of political Parties to make contributions to political municipal candidates. However, now the NDP supporters in the Metropolitan Toronto area are laundering contributions to municipal candidates through the New Democratic federal Party rather than the NDP provincial Party of Ontario the way it used to be done.
Will the President of the Treasury Board ask the Commissioner of Elections Canada to investigate this NDP tax scam? Will he also introduce new legislation to ensure that the NDP can no longer rip off the taxpayers of Canada? Usually scams are illegal.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this matter with the Chief Electoral Officer. I think the Hon. Member knows that under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically relating to the Elections Act, it does not place specific restrictions on the way in which the money is spent although there is a clear intention that the money should be used for purposes relating to federal elections.
I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration, and in view of the fact that we are currently reviewing the Elections Act and intend to bring in some changes, perhaps it might be the wish of all Hon. Members to clarify this issue in an amended form.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister is aware that CN has announced a closure of the shops in Moncton as of September 30. The foundry and rail shop components of the Moncton facility are found nowhere else in CN's entire railway system. Thus, when the shops close, some of that work will have to be done somewhere else and will have to be contracted out. In addition, CN will have to increase its staff at its Montreal facility in order to repair Bombardier locomotives, work which has traditionally been done at the Moncton shop.
In light of the fact that some workers could be rehired in Moncton to do this work and maintain some components of the Moncton shops, will the Government for once show some concern? Will this Minister intervene, at least at this moment, to save the remaining 350 jobs?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, CN is a Crown Corporation that is, of course, competing with the private sector. The assurance we can give is, that if the company is competitive, employees will keep their jobs. The reliability of CN employees and the quality of their work are guarantees for a successful future.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOVERNMENT TO ACT TO SAVE 350 JOBS IN MONCTON REGION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, those words are cold comfort for the Moncton workers, considering they were promised there would be no massive lay-offs in the region. It is a fact that if the Minister were prepared to intervene and instruct CN to maintain some components of the Moncton shops-I am thinking of the foundry and the rail shop-350 jobs could be saved.
How can people in New Brunswick be expected to believe this Government is sincere in its efforts to promote regional development, when it has consistently refused to take action to save the 350 jobs that could be saved in the Moncton area?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, this Government has demonstrated its concern for promoting regional development and alleviating regional disparity.
I repeat that CN is a Crown Corporation that operates on a commercial basis, and that it must be competitive. Markets have to be identified, and I am convinced that thanks to the excellent quality of the work done by these workers, we will be able to find a solution.
So we have to be competitive and we have to identify demand.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

January 20, 1988


REFUSAL TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS INTO ESTABLISHMENT OF CF-18 TEST RANGE IN SAGUENAY REGION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
According to the Quebec Minister of the Environment, the Department of National Defence has refused all public hearings on the F-18 firing range in the Saguenay.
Why is the Conservative Government refusing to give the people in this major area at least the same right to provide input as it gave prior to expanding the airport at Saint-Jean? Why the double standard?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware but DND has already completed an environmental study. All municipal councils in the area, and in the county in particular, have indicated their support for the firing range to go ahead. At least five public meetings have been held at which the commander of the base in the region was in attendance. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to know those facts too.


REQUEST THAT IMPACT STUDY BE MADE PUBLIC
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister reffered to an impact study. The Department has refused to publish this federal impact study.
Why is the Minister refusing to publish this study? What is he trying to hide by refusing public hearings and keeping this impact study under wraps? When is it going to be released?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the impact study has been made available, I understand, to four Departments in the Province of Quebec. The four Departments that have an interest in it have been getting together, and I understand that the Department of National Defence is now in official negotiations with the Province of Quebec on this matter.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right honourable Prime Minister refers to the Quebec shipyards.
The House will remember that not so long ago, the Federal Government asked the Quebec Government to purchase the Lauzon and Vickers shipbuilding yards. In a letter, the former had promised the latter to be very generous and to lavishly award contracts to the Quebec shipyards.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated on television that the Quebec shipyards are doing fine and that they would get their share of the $950 million contracts still to be awarded.
The Prime Minister will certainly agree that Quebecers are sick and tired of promises that do not materialize. Could the Prime Minister spell out what percentage of these $950 million contracts still to be awarded will go to Quebec shipyards? Could the Prime Minister indicate whether it will be 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent? We want a clear answer and a firm commitment!


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, this question having already been raised, I should like to indicate to my honourable friend that since taking office, the government has provided directly to the Quebec shipyards $97 million to streamline its operations. It has awarded them contracts worth about $550 million; there are other contracts worth $950 million which are being studied or calls for tender which could benefit Quebec shipyards.
1 suggest, therefore, that the statements made by my honourable friend are wrong, that his premises are wrong, and that the reality of the situation indicates a promising future for the industry in question.


REQUEST FOR FORMAL COMMITMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. When he says that the federal Government gave $97 million to upgrade the shipyards, it is true that it allocated funds to buy cranes, to buy soldering irons, to enlarge the piers. But he forgot to award contracts to build ships. This is why Sorel and Vickers have both shut down, they have no ships to build.
What we want to know is whether Quebec will be awarded contracts to build or repair ships. About the $950 million, can anyone be sincere and honest and say that Quebec will get 60 per cent of the contracts, a formal commitment? No false promises!


Robert René de Cotret: False promises! Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the president of the company involved. At a press conference about which Le Devoir wrote an article on Thursday, January 7, 1988, he had this to say after unveiling his restructuring projects: "On the other hand, on the basis of contracts already on the books-" Contracts already on the books, not promises, contracts already on the books. "-and due for completion by 1990, the Marine president expects an
ifcs

January 20, 1988

increase in the number of workers directly involved in production. That group of workers will increase from 1,557 in 1987 to more than 2,900 in 1990." That is not a setback, that is progress!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the concern expressed by a number of Members of the House regarding food supplies getting through to the Palestinian refugees, would the Minister be prepared to arrange a specific briefing for all Members of Parliament having an interest in this matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 would certainly be prepared to do that, either through the standing committee or through some other arrangement which might be agreed to by either the External Affairs critics of the various Parties or the House Leaders. I would want to set that up as quickly as possible. I would also think the House might find it valuable to have that briefing extend to a broad range of questions and not simply that of access to food by persons in the camps.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. He will recall that last spring he ordered a halt to his officials who were harassing farmers who applied for investment tax credits under provisions of the Income Tax Act. His officials were in effect rewriting the valuations for the used equipment involved.
He is aware that his Department has recommenced this practice and I am wondering if he can tell the House under what part of the law he permitted this to go forward and why his Department is pursuing this harassment of farmers over the question of whether or not the implement dealers allowed them too much for their trade-ins.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I know my friend opposite would not want to misstate the facts inadvertently. He is perfectly correct that last April 19 this audit was terminated. Some of the conditions that our auditors discovered are being processed in an orderly
Oral Questions
way. The audit has not commenced again. On the other hand, no sector can be given absolute immunity from regular taxation audits.
I give my undertaking to the House and individual Members that if there are any difficulties they will be looked at very sympathetically.


APPLICATION OF DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to the House why these tax forms filed in 1983 and 1984 are now being subjected to a guideline just published by his Department last fall?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the hon. gentleman opposite that the integrity of our tax system is based on selfassessment and equitable treatment. Occasionally there have been reassessments in connection with these matters based on economic circumstances. However, I repeat that all those reassessments have been done in a completely proper manner and with the maximum amount of flexibility and equity, recognizing that the agricultural sector in western Canada has had some difficult times in recent years.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the land claims of the Rubicon Lake Indian people. I would like to preface my question by thanking the right hon. gentleman as the senior Minister from Alberta for taking an active personal interest in this issue and for agreeing to meet with Chief Ominayak sometime tomorrow.
My question concerns a document prepared by the Minister's Department for distribution to Canadian embassies and consulates around the world. I would like to quote just a small part of it:
Although the Band has endeavoured to portray itself as impoverished and
near extinction, this is hardly the case ... The level of social services delivered
to Band members is comparable to those provided to other Indians in Canada
and is comparable to those available to all Canadians.
Does the Minister believe this to be an accurate description of the existing conditions of the Lubicon Lake Indian Band?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the question of whether or not I am responsible for every word and action of every official of my Department-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 20, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Riis


Charles Joseph Clark: -I believe that document is an appropriate document for the Department to have sent to our embassies.
I am pleased to be able to play a role with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in trying to bring to a conclusion, quickly and in Canada, a land claim which the Government believes is legitimate and which the Government has been acting vigorously to have resolved in a way which is just.


REQUEST THAT DOCUMENT BE WITHDRAWN
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, there are no water or sewer facilities in the community. Ninety-five per cent of the people there exist on welfare. One-third of the community has been tested positive for tuberculosis. That is hardly a situation comparable to anywhere else in the country.
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs have this document withdrawn from the embassies and consulates? In addition to that, will he offer a formal apology to the chief, the council, and the people of the Lubicon Lake Indian Band?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the assistance provided to the Lubicon Lake Band is exactly the same assistance as is provided to other bands in Canada. The level of social assistance is the level which has been established across Canada. It is available to the people of Lubicon.
With regard to the matter of sewer and water, the Hon. Member knows that it is not unusual in areas of rural Canada, including the area in which I live, that running water is not available to small communities. In this case the Government of Alberta, when installing water pipelines to a nearby community, offered to provide that same pipeline for running water to the Lubicon Band and the offer was rejected by the Band.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today in Question Period the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) made what I believe is a very serious allegation by suggesting that Members of the New Democratic Party were using the Income Tax Act and the Elections Act with impropriety.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has done the House a real service by indicating that there were no improprieties in this case, that no rules or laws were broken. In fact, the Income Tax Act and the Elections Act make this
practice not an illegal practice and an acceptable one under the circumstances.
I would like to ask that the Hon. Member for York East do the honourable thing. I suggest that he was not attempting to suggest that illegal activities were taking place, but the term "laundering money" certainly has a very clear implication in our culture and society that when groups are laundering money they are doing something illegal, something that is certainly wrong.
I suggest that the Hon. Member for York East may have something to say, that he would retract any suggestion that any impropriety was being conducted.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly not my intention, nor will it ever be, to make an unparliamentary remark in this House.
My understanding of a question of privilege is that it must apply to an individual Member of this House as distinct from an entire group or Party. Therefore, I submit that this is not a question of privilege.
It may very well be that the term that was used has a variety of meanings and I certainly do not want to suggest for a moment that it is definitely illegal. It certainly was not the intention of the legislation to allow this sort of thing. I am sure that the Hon. Member would agree with that.
However, Mr. Speaker, if you feel that this is an unparliamentary remark and that this is a legitimate question of privilege, I am certainly quite willing to withdraw the remark.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I respect the views of the Hon. Member which he has made known. He has indicated that if this remark is considered to be unparliamentary he is indeed prepared to withdraw the remark.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when members of a political Party are accused of laundering political contributions, when in fact that is not taking place as the Deputy Prime Minister so adequately pointed out, the honourable thing for the Member of Parliament for York East to do would be simply to withdraw that suggestion and allegation to clear the air once and for all.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, a search of Beauchesne's has indicated to me that this is not an unparliamentary term. However, if you feel in your judgment, Sir, that it is an unparliamentary term; if you feel in your judgment that this is a legitimate question of privilege, then I will certainly accede to your desire.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has raised, on a question of privilege, a matter referred to by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). The complaint is that the use of the word "laundering" implies, in my own words, something illegal, dishonest, or improper. The Hon. Member for York East, in defence, says
January 20, 1988

that privilege, strictly speaking, has to apply to an individual, not to a corporation or a Party.
Technically the Hon. Member has an arguable point. However, one of the reasons certain things are not permitted is that if they were permitted they would create disorder or a difficulty in the Chamber. In this particular case it would appear that the reply of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in itself might have been adequate to assuage the feelings of any other Hon. Member. However, the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party has raised this complaint.
The Chair might suggest that under the circumstances the Hon. Member for York East might rise and indicate, if in any way he was implying dishonesty or illegal activity on behalf of a member of the New Democratic Party, that it would be withdrawn.
The Hon. Member for York East takes an interesting approach. He has stated that if I find that what he said was unparliamentary he will withdraw it. The Chair is always reluctant to find anything more unparliamentary than it already has to deal with. The suggestion of the Chair is that under the circumstances, without any particular ruling on my part, the Hon. Member for York East would want to indicate that he was not implying something dishonest or illegal in the strictest term against any member of the New Democratic Party. I call upon the Member for York East to assist the Chair.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know that my friends in the NDP would like me to resign at this stages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: I truly feel, Mr. Speaker, that you were elected by all of us, including myself, to rule on matters in this House. I know quite well that you understand your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, Sir, I await your ruling as to whether this is unparliamentary. If you find such to be the case, I most certainly will withdraw it. If, however, you find that not to be the case, que sera sera.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pursue this. We are beginning a new year, 1988. This is the first week that Parliament is sitting in the new year. I think the House Leader and the Deputy Prime Minister would indicate that there has been an incredible amount of co-operation by all parties. There has been an attempt, at least, at a mood of civility, cooperation, and working together in a positive way for the best interests of the country.
I find it difficult when an Hon. Member, in this case the Hon. Member for York East, stands in his place and suggests that members of the New Democratic Party were laundering money when such was not the case. The Deputy Prime Minister said that such was not the case. There is no question that it cast a certain pall over Members of my Party and Members of the House of Commons.
Routine Proceedings
If this is what we can expect, and the Member for York East will not withdraw his remarks but wants to use language that may not be covered in our publications as being definite unparliamentary language but which I think any sensible parliamentarian would certainly identify as being unacceptable and unparliamentary when used in such a way, I simply appeal to the Member to do the honourable thing and make it very clear that he was not imputing any illegal activities, any dishonest activities and that there was no impropriety whatsoever occurring in the use of these funds.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Member for York East if he can advise the Chair whether he intended to accuse any Member of the Chamber, NDP or otherwise, of doing anything illegal or dishonest?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, what I intended to do was find out whether, in fact, this action is illegal and dishonest. That was the purpose of my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We have his answer, Mr. Speaker, and if you feel, in all the context of this, that this is unparliamentary, I shall certainly withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the Hon. Member for York East if in anything he said in the question he intended to impute dishonesty or illegality to any Member in this Chamber. The answer is yes or no.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no, certainly not, only to make an inquiry of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of this legislation, to tell us, one way or the other, what the interpretation of those acts were.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York East has most certainly brought the matter to the attention of the House and to the country. The Hon. Member for York East has also made it quite clear that he was not imputing dishonesty or wrongdoing to any Member of this Chamber. I think that is where the matter ought to be left. I thank Hon Members for their intervention.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates(D) for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, was presented by Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the

January 20, 1988
Petitions
House Leaders and I think you will find agreement for the following proposal. I move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 82(16), Supplementary Estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, laid upon the table earlier this day, stand referred to a committee of the whole; and
That immediately upon the Committee of the Whole reporting the said Supplementary Estimates, the Appropriation Bill based thereon shall be introduced and proceeded with forthwith at all stages.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you will find unanimous consent to receive and place the following motion. I move:
That, the Order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-105, an Act to ensure the safe operation of railways and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof, standing on the Order Paper, be changed to read second reading and reference to the Standing Committee of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadian residents from Ontario and Quebec who have expressed their deep concern that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States. They note that the Prime
Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the course of bilateral trade negotiations, had promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
In view of the very adverse impact of the proposed trade agreement, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadian citizens, equally concerned about the free trade deal which the Prime Minister has initialled with the President of the United States.
In particular, they are concerned that the deal threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions. For these and many other reasons, the petitioners call upon Parliament to be dissolved so that the people of Canada may have the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table three petitions which have been certified correct pursuant to the Standing Orders and read as follows:
Your petitioners humbly state that the Mulroney Government has sold Canada without obtaining anything in return; that Canadian industries still lack protection against American trade laws; that the United States has obtained everything it wanted in all major sectors, including agriculture, energy, the automobile industry, financial services and investment; that the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened, and that the Conservative Government has made no provision for adjustment assistance to help retrain Canadian workers.
Wherefore your petitioners humby pray Parliament to condemn the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility to present a petition under Standing Order 106 with respect to the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. The petition is signed by residents of Sudbury and Ontario.
The signatories are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that in fact the Prime Minister promised during the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. They are concerned it has been.
January 20, 1988

Petitions
Therefore, these petitioners are calling upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many citizens from Hamilton. These petitioners are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, and the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure, indeed, an honour, to rise pursuant to Standing Order 106 to submit a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who point out that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that the proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to now dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Madam Speaker, the three petitions I am tabling today were signed by ninety-nine residents of Vankleek Hill, Ottawa, Ontario, but the majority of the undersigned are residents of my riding, Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic in Montreal. The undersigned deplore the fact that more than 100,000 people in Canada were homeless last year; that the number of homeless young people, women and families is increasing steadily; that the number of affordable housing units continues to decrease, and that the Government has yet to do anything to deal with this problem.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to take immediate action to ensure that all Canadians are given decent and adequate housing and provide social reintegration programs to help these needy Canadians become part of our society again.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility to present a duly authorized petition from a number of constituents from Lake Cowiehan, Duncan, Youbou, Cobbie Hill, who are concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
They point out that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude such a trade agreement with the United States. They complain that the negotiated trade agreement threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources or tb equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and give the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the trade deal through a general election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour, according to Standing Order 106, to present a petition from a number of residents of the well-informed and alert people of the constituency of Spadina, who call upon the Conservative Government to reconsider the fact it had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement and that in fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised us during the course of the negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. Yet the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. It would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present to the House a petition, certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions, from a number of Canadians who are concerned that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, and that the trade agreement which was negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
This proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.

January 20, 1988
Petitions
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 also want to table a petition concerning the Free Trade Agreement between our Prime Minister and President Reagan of the United States. Your petitioners feel that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by this trade agreement; they feel that the Conservative Government has no mandate to negotiate a trade deal with the United States: they feel that this trade agreement would undermine our ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canada needs. Therefore, your petitioners are asking for a national debate, followed by a national general election before such an agreement is signed. Madam Speaker, this petition is signed by a group of Chinese and Vietnamese Canadians from Toronto.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, as a Member of Parliament, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadian electors. It has been certified correct according to Standing Order 106 by the Clerk of Petitions.
Because the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, because the Mulroney Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, because the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canadians need, and because a Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, the undersigned ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national election before such an agreement is signed.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, 1 have the honour to present a petition from my constituency on the subject of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. It is signed by residents from Windsor, Belle River, LaSalle, Harrow and from other communities within my constituency.
The petitioners believe the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and that this trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. They believe it would also threaten the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
For that reason those who have signed this petition humbly call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or to reject this
proposed trade agreement through a general election before it is signed and finalized.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam
Speaker, it is my honour and privilege under the provisions of Standing Order 106 to present a petition to the House. It has been certified as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
It is a rather special day for this particular petition because it is signed in part by employees of Canada Post, Postal Station F, by both inside workers and letter carriers. I say it is significant because these are the same people that Canada Post is trying to muzzle in their right of free speech to speak out against programs of Canada Post that will affect service to Canadians.
The petition is about the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement, the bad deal. The petitioners, some of whom are also members of the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council, object to the terms of the agreement. They question the impact of the agreement. They believe that it 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 U. S.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election. I am ready, Madam Speaker.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I too have the privilege and responsibility pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 106 to present a petition which has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions as correct as to form and to content.
This petition is signed by a large number of residents, principally of the City of Edmonton in the Province of Alberta. They, like so many other petitioners whose petitions have been heard today, petition Parliament that the Government having had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude the trade sellout with the United States should, in effect, dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to choose in a general election whether Canada's future will be Canadian or American.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table in the House a petition signed by residents of Shediac, Grande Digue, Cap Pele, Scoudouc, Haute-Aboujagane and Cormier Village.
Your petitioners humbly state that the Mulroney Government has sold Canada without obtaining anything in return; that Canadian industries are still not protected; that the United States has all the major sectors; that the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to condemn this Government for having signed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
January 20, 1988


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Question No. 232 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	As a result of the signing of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWAMP) in May, 1986 has there been any expenditure of government funds and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Are there any government funds allocated to be spent in relation to NAWAMP in the remainder of this fiscal year or in the two following and, if so, for what purposes?


Thomas Michael McMillan: 1.
Yes. By the end of the 1987-88 fiscal year, approximately $4 million (A-Base budget) as well as $3.7 million (government grants to the Wildlife Habitat Canada Foundation, based on the sale of the Canada Wildlife Habitat Conservation stamp).
2. Yes. For the remainder of this fiscal year, funds will be spent on the continuation of planning and implementation of the NAWMP program, as well as on wetland preservation in support of the NAWMP. For the fiscal years of 1988-89 and 1989-90, spending will be directed towards soil conservational; improved protection and management of waterfowl habitat, particularly on the Prairies; and cash incentives to land owners to manage marginal lands for waterfowl habitat enhancement.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTION


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
October 17, 1986-That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of increasing political, diplomatic and other support for the "Front Line States" in southern Africa in light of increasing South African economic, military and political pressure on those states.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties regarding Motion No. 69 as it stands on the Order Paper regarding the Front Fine States. I would simply ask that the Chair seek unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) in whose name this motion stands to have it withdrawn.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would concur with my colleague. There have been discussions to that effect. Certainly, Members on this side have no objection.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion to be withdrawn?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I will resume the remarks that I began a day ago with regard to Bill C-103, an Act to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
What we see before us is a Bill that takes control over regional development programs that are now in the Atlantic region, namely, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, IRDP; the Atlantic Enterprise Program, AEP; the Small Business Loans Act as it relates to the Atlantic region; the ERDA subagreements; and the Atlantic Supplier Development Program.
What we have here was presented with some fanfare. It was described as a $1 billion program. We found out that it was $1.05 billion spread over five years. In reality what we are talking about is some $200 million per year. This is fairly familiar to Members of the House who have been watching this sort of sleight of hand with numbers, which has become a hallmark of this administration, particularly over the last few years.
Since 1984, from which date we do our analysis, it has been estimated that assistance to the Atlantic area by the Conservative Government has been cut by something approaching $1.5 billion annually from various federal Government spending programs as they once applied to the Atlantic region. These $1.5 billion annual reductions in expenditures over three and a half years are scarcely compensated for by something in the order of $200 million per annum in their place. So the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency comes to its task with greatly reduced funding and much reduced ability to address the particular regional development problems of that area.
I wish to review some of that decline in the commitment in the last three and a half years. To be fair, some of that decline was in place even before the present Government took over. The fading years of the Liberal administration saw some backing away from economic development into the Atlantic region as well.
Over the past 25 years less than 3 per cent of total federal economic expenditures have been applied to the concept of regional development. Exclusive regional development expenditures in 1984-1985 for all of the Atlantic region were in the order of $230 million. To put that into perspective, it amounts to approximately 15 per cent of the amount put into unemployment insurance payments for that area.
In the five year period between 1969 and 1974, inclusive, expenditures under the DRIE industrial incentive programs have decreased in real terms. In 1969-1970 they amounted to $9 per person which declined to $4 per person in the 19841986 period. Over time one can see the backing away of federal assistance to the Atlantic region that has taken place in Canada.
In looking at specific areas in Atlantic Canada, the decrease from $9 to $4 on a per capita basis was even more sharply in decline for the Province of Newfoundland where the reduction for that same period of time was from $9 per person down to $3 per person. The commitment to regional development programs, regional development funds from the rest of Canada
to Newfoundland has been even less enthusiastic than for the Atlantic region.
During the same period of time in Ontario the amount of regional expansion funding was $10 per person, as opposed to $9 per person in Atlantic Canada. That dropped to $4 per person, as opposed to $3 per person for Newfoundland.
The disparities that the programs that have been put into place were attempting to take care of and ameliorate have in fact not changed greatly. In fact, it appears that a lot of the development programming and development funding has accrued to the more developed parts of the country at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that is applied to Atlantic Canada which, by most of the indicators that we have to judge these things, is the least developed and the most in need of development funds.
The role and the assessment of regional development took place as a federal-provincial task force which published its report in May, 1987. The task force focused on five main areas where it thought that direct regional development policy ought to be centred in the next decade. It stated that the key elements of the agenda are highlighted if one focuses on those five main areas. Number one was to design the transfer system in ways that encouraged productive employment supported by income security measures.
There they are telling us that the types of employment encouragement that occurs under these types of programs should be fairly long term employment to the point where they support themselves and are not simply short term designed to employ people for a short period in the summer months and then make them eligible for unemployment assistance during the winter. This is sometimes considered to be job creation and leaves the impression that there has been more real activity achieved by these development programs than in fact actually happens.
In number two the task force is recommending that there should be a reorientation of education and training systems as a key component of public investment in regional economic development. Throughout the debate on this particular Bill we have been hearing that the Atlantic area does have many long term, long established well-known traditional educational institutions. It has very well established university and postsecondary institutions. Yet a great many of the graduates from these institutions have difficulty remaining in the Atlantic area. This is particularly true of the Cape Breton region. A great many expatriates find their way to central Canada in order to make use of their education and training.
In number three the task force reported that there should be a diffusion of innovation and technology as a prerequisite for structural improvement of the less advantaged regions. I have listened to the debate with great care and I have noted that a number of speakers have pointed out that this initiative in Bill C-103 ignores the need for infrastructure. This third recommendation of the task force is attempting to point out that there does have to be certain prerequisites in an area in order
January 20, 1988

that industrial development can take place. It is necessary to establish certain basic services in order that an industry or a region can take off.
As the agricultural critic I am concerned when I see certain parts of the maritime provinces in Atlantic Canada where Agriculture Canada does not appear to be encouraging the type of commitment to research and development that we have come to expect from Agriculture Canada.
For instance, in the Kentville area of the Annapolis Valley over time, and not willy-nilly but very deliberately, we have developed a poultry industry. It is an area that has become a centre of excellence for development in the poultry area. There are several large feed companies and some research going on with regard to feeds. There is an Agriculture Canada research centre which is doing research on a great many things, but it is one of the better institutions for poultry research. It has perhaps done more poultry research than the two other main research centres that are doing poultry research in this country. It has been particularly useful to the region where hatcheries, broiler production, processing, veterinary services, distribution and processing, research into the development of new ways of processing poultry, and handling new ways of feeding and housing poultry have all been going on for some time. It is largely based around the college at Kentville and the Agriculture Canada research centre.
On June 11, 1985 one of the poultry barns at the research centre burned down. It is now January, 1988 and that barn has still not been replaced by Agriculture Canada. There were three, but the loss of that one unit reduced the research capabilities of that station by almost 40 per cent.
Poultry research has to go through cycles. There has to be a certain amount of product going through when doing genetic, disease, and nutritional research. When one barn disappeared it took 40 pens out of the research project. It meant that approximately 40 per cent of the program had to be cut back.
Agriculture Canada does not have a system of insurance for its facilities. It engages in what it calls reinsurance, which I think is a wise business decision. It does not pay out a lot on insurance premiums. When it loses a building or some equipment, it is simply replaced out of its budget.
The problem was that the estimated replacement cost of the building was in the neighbourhood of $350,000 to $400,000. We were told that in the House in answer to a written question on December 17, 1985. It was said at that time that the estimated cost of replacement would be about $400,000. As to who would build the barn, on what date it would be completed, and whether it would be the same size as the previous barn, that information was still not known a year and a half after the fire.
A further two years went by and on January 19, 1987, just over a year ago, I again asked whether there was a project to
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
replace the poultry barn at the Kentville, Nova Scotia Agriculture Research Centre; what was the status of the replacement; what amount had been budgeted; and what time it would be completed. Agriculture Canada's response was that it did not have a project to replace that poultry barn and that it was consulting. The Government is great at consulting; it does a lot of consulting. Agriculture Canada went on to say that the question of construction had not yet been decided. As to what amount would be budgeted, Agriculture Canada said that it was unknown at that time. As to when it would be completed, it said that that was also unknown at that time.
I raised a question with the Deputy Minister last spring. I asked him what good reinsurance was if lost buildings were never replaced, and what assurance did Atlantic Canada have that this particular centre of excellence would be brought back up to steam. He said that he would investigate, and I have since found out that there is an estimate of some $250,000 toward replacement of the barn.
Perhaps, if the research station could do the building itself, it could be replaced for that amount. However, if it follows the normal procedures it is required to follow, of having it put out to tender and using architectural services, the cost of the building would be somewhere in the area of $400,000.
I only raise this matter because the Government, which claims to be helping economic development in the Atlantic region, has sat on a particular project and has done nothing with it for almost four years. The research being done out of that station is very important. For instance, it does research of a very practical kind. One example would be long-term testing to see whether expensive feed additives are necessary to control disease in poultry, whether we have to put antibiotics into poultry feed at high costs, or whether in fact those antibiotics increase the growth and cost efficiency of poultry raising.
They appear to have found that if poultry are kept on balanced nutrition and in good, dry, and well-ventilated housing, those additives actually cost money and slow down the growth process, something which means hundreds of thousands of dollars not only to poultry producers in Atlantic Canada but to those in the rest of the country.
This kind of research is being held back because the Government refuses to give the funding which that particular part of Agriculture Canada needs in order to get the station back up to full steam.
I am very concerned when we are told that this $1 billion to be spread over five years will solve the problems of Atlantic Canada. It will actually be a massive cut-back in funds for economic development going into Atlantic Canada, and these funds will not even be aimed at assisting with research, development, and post-secondary education. These funds are being targeted through only one form of economic development. If it does not happen through business, these funds will not be any good. It is taking a unidimensional view of economic development. It is saying that there is no role for Government or community organizations to play in setting up

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
infrastructures. It is saying that there is no role for educational and research institutions to play in the development of the region. I think it is a massive mistake. It is also saying that the only way to develop the region is to supply some funds to business which will therefore result in growth in Atlantic Canada.
It has been shown by previous government initiatives in other areas that heavy reliance on business to do the job which Government must do becomes unproductive. When there was an effort to change research and development from the Government to more of an initiative of business, research and development actually shrunk by the same amount as Government got out of it. Business in this country does not pick up in these areas. I am afraid that that is what will happen in the Atlantic area, and I am not sure that that great region of the country will be able to survive the policies of this Government.
I regret that the Government persists in cutting back the amount of funding and assistance to that very important region.


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech. I was glad to hear that the issue of regional development in Atlantic Canada is not confined to Members from Atlantic Canada.
Would the Hon. Member care to comment on a couple of references which have been made to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency by a Minister of the Crown and by Senator Murray from the other place who is to be in charge of this agency as Minister?
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) is on record as having said that this agency is the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada, that we have tried everything and this is the last chance for Atlantic Canada. This very phrase, "the last kick at the can", was echoed by Senator Murray when he was speaking before the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion. We should combine those comments with the references of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) when he introduced the Bill. He said that they have established a board of Atlantic Canadians, that the success of this plan was in the hands of Atlantic Canadians, and that we would have to wait four years or five years to see if it works.
As an Atlantic Canadian I find that very frightening. It seems to me that these remarks are not only a backing away but a frightful derogation of the responsibility of the central Government for the problems of Atlantic Canada and for the need for regional industrial expansion and development, particularly when the Economic Council of Canada indicates in a report that uneven regional and industrial expansion across the country is the most serious economic problem which we as a nation face.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), as a western Canadian, would care to comment on that. Does he feel some sympathy for the concern
that central Canada is washing its hands of the Atlantic region?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, as I had great difficulty understanding what the Minister meant when he said this was going to be the last kick at the can, or whatever the phrase was, I had this brief fleeting mental image of the Minister with a great mallet and chisel chopping through rock pushing the eastern part of the country out into the ocean, saying goodbye you are on your own. We don't want you anymore. Would the Minister, who I think comes from Atlantic Canada, perhaps be on the leading edge of the run into the ocean?
It distresses me to hear those kinds of comments from Ministers of the Government, whether this Government or previous Governments. Perhaps is distresses me more coming from a region that is not always considered to be the most wealthy part of the country. I think there has to be more sympathy from the rest of the country for regions experiencing problems, whether temporary or fairly long term.
I think the solution being offered in this Bill almost ensures that the region will fail the test. When you cut back the amount of funding going into the region, reduce the amount of assistance, it is almost certain to fail. When you have the kind of cut-backs that we have seen being applied against Atlantic Canadians, I think that Ministers are putting Atlantic Canadians to a very great test. I hope that there will be an opportunity for them to put their futures into the hands of some other group of politicians than the group on which they have been depending in the past.

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian and Northern
Affairs)): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to make a few comments in this House on Bill C-103, an Act to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and also to answer a few questions that were raised in this debate. I will take this opportunity to review the comments heard during the consultation process that was held throughout Atlantic Canada, with a most enthusiastic level of participation.
The new agency reflects the Canadian Government's firm commitment to tackle the problem of economic growth in Atlantic Canada. Through the creation of a climate favourable to new investments, through regional participation in decisionmaking, through the implementation of initiatives that are well adjusted to the region, the agency intends to promote economic development in Atlantic Canada and more particularly to enhance employment opportunities and the growth of earned incomes in that region.

One need only look at the Speech from the Throne to see the firm commitment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave to the spirit and importance of regional economic development in the regions of our country. We have distanced ourselves from
January 20, 1988

the previous Government's approach and positioned ourselves as a Government which has a fresh and exciting vision. Our approach is a bold departure from the old government practice where most of the decisions affecting Atlantic Canada were made outside the region.
The Bill creates ACOA, an integral part of this Government's commitment to building a strong, economic climate in which there will be an increased number of permanent jobs and investment opportunities, a climate in which residents will be able to expect and benefit from the prospects of longer term development of our resources and from small and medium sized businesses.
This agency's primary objective is not to make up for disparities which exist, as previous Governments addressed, but to address the root causes of these disparities. It is for this reason the Prime Minister insisted the agency take a bottom-up approach. Local input and participation is the key to success and the bottom line for this Government.
When I refer to local input, I make specific reference to why it took 18 months, in the words of the Hon. Member for Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), to reinforce our commitment to consultation and the private sector. Before the agency was created on June 6, 1987, Dr. Donald Savoie, a prominent Acadian-an Atlantic Canadian and an expert on regional development-was specially appointed by the Prime Minister to consult with representatives from all sectors in Atlantic Canada. The result was an agency by Atlantic Canadians for Atlantic Canadians, an Atlantic Canadian product delivered where flexibility, sensitivity and political will gets things done. It wants to be a non-bureaucratic, action oriented, entrepreneurial answer to our problems. I should add that the consultations have not stopped.
Since early November, Madam Speaker, the agency has met with approximately 300 individuals during these Phase II consultation meetings. Another 12 meetings will be held over the next month, involving an additional 250 business and community leaders. Their contribution is paramount to the new generation of policy and program options for the agency. This new generation will elicit, cultivate and build on an entrepreneurial spirit in the private sector.
The agency, as you may know, has been given responsibility for all regional development programs related to Atlantic Canada. The expenditures committed to date show a considerable increase over expenditures in Atlantic Canada by the previous Government. The increase is well over 35 per cent in actual dollars.
In addition, the agency comes to us with an additional $1.05 billion over five years with which to address the needs of the region and sub regions of Atlantic Canada seriously. 1 must forcefully point out that the mood of Atlantic Canadians is not any longer that money is the answer to their problems. They had money thrown at them-they have had enough of that-
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
and poured into the region in the past with no real intent or purpose being articulated, and worse, with no understanding as to what Atlantic Canadians wanted or needed.
Let us address once and for all the facts on funding. The previous speaker spoke about funding. The statements that have been made in the House are apparently based on budget papers which showed that spending under the economic and regional development envelope in 1987-88 would amount to $11.9 billion, a decline of $2.9 billion relative to the envelope total of $14.8 billion in 1984-85. A comparison of these two numbers has been incorrectly interpreted as a lowering of the Government's concern and commitment to regional development. That is not the case, Madam Speaker. The economic and regional development envelope includes many more activities than regional development per se. It includes the expenditures of some 11 departments and their related agencies.
Where declines have taken place, they reflect completion of infrastructure investments, more effective and less intrusive policy approaches; for example, our decision to scrap the flawed National Energy Program and the successful privatization efforts, such as the sale of Canadair and de Havilland. Members will remember what the New Democrats, our socialist friends, and the Liberals were saying about these privatizations, that they would be a disaster. On the contrary, they appear to be huge successes.
An examination of the changes in the level and composition of spending clearly reflects the Government's strong commitment to assisting regions, to regional development and to economic development priorities. By contrast, expenditures and regular DRIE and related programs are up some $120 million relative to 1984-85. More generally, expenditures by all federal departments and through federal-provincial regional development agreements-GDA and ERDA-in 1987-88 will be more than double the level in 1984-85. Yet opposition Members have the gall to come in this House and go to Atlantic Canada saying we are actually spending less in Atlantic Canada. Just in ERDA in 1987-88 we will spend double the amount spent in 1984-85.
I see Members on the other side nodding. They look at the figures but they cannot see them. We do not invent those figures. These are the facts. I see the Member from Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I heard him speak today. He should thank us. He should think about what the level of employment was when we took over from the Liberal Government. He must be honest enough to admit that the level of unemployment in the Province of New Brunswick has been drastically reduced in the last three years. That the Liberals do not like. You do not see the Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent going to New Brunswick telling people that we have created more jobs there in the last three years. It is a good solid record.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
There exists in Atlantic Canada today a new entrepreneurial spirit which is seeking access to capital as opposed to handouts. Remember the Liberal way of hand-outs? I think our entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada are seeking access to capital, not hand-outs.
Going hand in hand with that spirit is the board of ACOA which is composed of experienced business and community leaders in the Atlantic region.

All are from the Atlantic region. They represent small businesses, business groups, labour groups and provincial governments. Those spokespersons also are active in their communities and have a very good knowledge of Atlantic Canada. The board, thanks to that balanced choice of representatives from a cross-section of the economy and from various backgrounds, ensures active and expert participation in the development and implementation of new programs. The board advises and guides the Minister in any decision involving the Agency's mandate, policies and options. Its influence already is clear through the contents of the Bill now before us and the programs that soon will be announced by the Minister in charge of the agency. That board has and always will have the Minister's ear.

I was most pleased to see and hear the Elon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe endorse the basic principle of more autonomy and more decisions being taken in the region, as well as the principle of targeting the region to try and come to grips with regional development programs. I thank him for his strong endorsement of this government initiative.
The question of infrastructure was raised by the Hon. Member for Grand Fails-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). Being a former cabinet Minister from the far north of Labrador, I am sure he has great passion for a commitment to the brick and mortar approach. However, I submit that that is not enough.

As in any organization, priorities had to be made and the emphasis was put on activities that can have the best possible economic return for the area.
However, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Madam Speaker, would be ready to negotiate auxiliary agreements for the development of infrastructures under Economic and Regional Development Agreements, ERDA's. The funds invested in those new agreements, however, should not be taken from new funds allocated to the Agency but rather from departments with responsibility in that area, providing the provincial governments, agree on the need for such agreements.

My good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), is more than familiar with the details of regional development and regional disparities from the old days of DREE and DR1E. He said:
The depth of the measures open to the new agency is more extensive than
under DRIE, DREE, or other programs of the past.
This is not the superficial approach of the past. It is a flexible approach through the ACOA financing mechanism which will focus the resources of all departments of Government and all agencies as well as its own funding component on the problems in the area.
The agency does not vaguely refer to procurement, training and skill development, job creation, technology, and infrastructure development, as the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador indicated earlier. Its mandate is to be an advocate which will keep on top of the activities of all other federal departments and agencies. It will ensure that Atlantic Canada has a voice, and I assure you that it will not be too long before federal activity in Atlantic Canada is more unified, and joint action by the departments and agencies is commonplace.

Now, the Liberal doom and gloom merchants probably want Atlantic Canadians to remain where they kept them themselves for 20 years. I am not really surprised because their position on the agency is about the same as on the Free Trade Agreement. The Liberal Party, which was viewed in the past as the party of the future, has now become the party of the past; they want to turn back the clock and keep Atlantic Canada in the past. Well, I am sorry, but this Government has decided to propel Atlantic Canada into the 21st century and to promote progress and economic development. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) should listen to what his cousin, Mr. McKenna, the New Brunswick Premier, has to say about the Free Trade Agreement. If the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent has the development of the Atlantic region and of New Brunswick at heart, he should take lessons from Frank McKenna, the New Brunswick Premier, who has not been shortcircuited by the indefensible position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in telling Atlantic Canadians: You cannot make inroads on the American market, you cannot produce in the Atlantic region, you are not qualified to do so, you are small-time and we want to keep you that way. This is not what the Government is saying to Atlantic Canadians, and the agency is a tool which will allow our businessmen, our men, women and young people to create jobs and new wealth in Atlantic Canada, to go against the American market and do business with the rest of the country. The Liberals kept us in the dark for 20 years. This Government wants to bring Atlantic Canada out of the dark, but not by imposing made-in-Ottawa solutions. Certainly not! We are asking Atlantic Canadians to be the makers of their own development, and this is the purpose of the agency!
January 20, 1988

Madam Speaker, we have heard the Members opposite say that the Free Trade Agreement was sounding the death knell of regional development policies.

1 hope the people of Atlantic Canada watch this Bill being debated in the House today. The free trade agreement allegedly prevents this Government from taking measures to ensure that we are able to fight regional disparity in the country. Yet the agreement has been signed by the Prime Minister and President Reagan and we are now introducing a Bill in the House to do just that, to equip Atlantic Canada with the tools of regional development. That is a unique approach. The people of Atlantic Canada will realize today that les prophetes de malheur in the Opposition were not telling the truth in Atlantic Canada when they told them that the free trade agreement would preclude regional development initiatives. Quite the contrary. This free trade agreement, coupled with the agencies, coupled with the entrepreneurial spirit of Atlantic Canada, will make that region a different place in the not too distant future.
I hope that Liberal Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, the very few from New Brunswick-one too many maybe-will put the best interests of Atlantic Canada ahead of their little political vision in the little federal Liberal Party. This represents the future of Atlantic Canada.
1 was not in the House for all of the speeches but I looked at pome of them and it is incredible that people would stand up and say some of the things they said. For example, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), in speaking to the House about the Bill, was talking about the question of funding. He said that we had cut $3 billion from regional development. I made the case earlier that this is totally, palpably, and blatantly false. We are spending more in Atlantic Canada.
When I hear the Liberals and NDP talking about economic development in Atlantic Canada only in terms of money, it tells me and Atlantic Canadians that theirs is the same old solution-throw money at the problem. They think that money solves everything. It has not in the past. We would rather rely on the industry of our people, on their talent and their entrepreneurial spirit. With that recipe and this Bill we shall succeed. I encourage all Members to support this Bill and vote in favour of its adoption.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague from New Brunswick. He did try to pat himself on the back, and when he says that the Government was firmly committed to take action in regional development matters, I have a question for him: Where was the Minister in the case of Moncton's CN shops? The agency we are talking about today will promote development, find new ways to create jobs, and protect existing jobs as well. I support
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
that effort. But how can the people of New Brunswick be expected to believe the Minister's remarks are sincere when he never did stand up for the CN shop workers? I would remind him that when the Government took office in 1984 there were 1,200 workers in the Moncton shops. There are now 350 left. These 350 workers might hang on to their jobs if the Government were to tell CN to reconsider the matter and reorganize some of the Moncton shops facilities which do not exist anywhere else in the entire CN system. But where are they? How can they say they are committed to take action with respect to regional development and job creation?


Mr. Valcourt:: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to answer the question put by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). I may remind the Hon. Member that in my riding-the riding of Madawaska- Victoria in New Brunswick-Edmundston, the capital of the Madawaska Republic in New Brunswick, was a CN town. Before the previous Liberal Government cut CN jobs in Edmundston, 1,200 jobs at CN fed 1,200 families in this small town with a population of 15,000. In 1984, when I was elected by the people of Madawaska-Victoria to represent them here in Parliament, there were barely 150 jobs at CN in Edmundston, New Brunswick. As far as I know, Jean-Luc Pepin and the Liberal Party were responsible for that.
The federal Liberal Party doesn't have to tell us about cutbacks at CN.
Today, during Question Period, my colleague the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina) explained why CN had to cut jobs.
However, according to Jeannita Theriault in today's edition of Le Matin-I suggest the Hon. Member read this paper which is a major source of information-Paul Daigle, the director of the Moncton Industrial Development Agency, said that 1987 was one of the best years for Moncton's industrial development.

Moncton has never had a better year than 1987 in terms of industrial development. That is a fact. Opposition Members look only at one issue-CN. Business is booming in Moncton. Go see the young entrepreneurs in Moncton. Go see the investment by the private sector. Look at the jobs created in Moncton. That is a result of lower interest rates. It comes from consumer confidence and a better economic climate which has been brought about by the policies of the Government.
I remember Moncton in 1984 when the business people had to borrow money at 21 per cent. They were losing their houses. Mortgage rates were so high that people could not afford to pay the interest. People were going bankrupt in New Brunswick. It has all changed in three years and we can take the credit for that change. Members may laugh, but when the people in Moncton who is renewing their mortgages at 11 per cent, and hear the Liberals laugh at the misery imposed upon them by the previous Government, they will not forget.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987 [Translation]
Madam Speaker, when the people of the Atlantic region look at the past three years and see what has happened and the hundreds and thousands of jobs that have been created, 1 am sure they will be confident the agency will be a major tool for their future development.


Mr. Comeau:: Madam Speaker, we have been listening to the opposition Parties over the past two or three years telling us that the way to solve all problems is to throw money at them, that money will solve everything. That was the previous Government's way of doing things and is the only thing they know.
1 am from Atlantic Canada. 1 have been talking to my constituents and they tell me that the solution is not to throw money at the problem, that the solution is in how you spend the money. The opposition Parties are worried that we have a winner on our hands with the ACOA. That is why they are laughing. You can hear them laughing in the background at some of the results we have achieved with our policies.
Did the Minister hear it said in Atlantic Canada that we should throw money at the problems? Was that the comment the Minister heard when he travelled around Atlantic Canada to find out what the business community and our constituents wanted? Did they want a continuation of the past hand-outs to our people?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is a very important question because it points to a change of attitude in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps it is not so much a change of attitude as a better reading by the Government of the attitudes in Atlantic Canada. There is an editorial in the January 19 edition of The Times-Transcript. It is entitled "The Oliver Twist Syndrome". I do not know whether my hon. colleague has seen this. It states:
-despite some slight reduction to date and a desire to reduce it further- the federal deficit is much greater than it was except for the last few years of the Liberals' incumbency.
People know about the Liberals' deficit. It goes on:
$1.3 billion for R and D

"It's not enough.'' $7 billion for day care-"It's not enough."
$1.1 billion in further assistance for Canadian farmers, bringing the total for 1988 to $3.2 billion-"It's not enough."
The government is reforming the tax structure; some of the changes will mean more in the pockets of lower-income Canadians-"It's not enough."
He said:
These are just examples in the past few weeks alone. The pattern has been increasingly evident of late.
The previous Government literally bankrupted the country. It threw money at the problems. As an Atlantic Canadian I will never suggest that the previous Liberal Government did
not spend money in Atlantic Canada. They threw money at Atlantic Canada, but it was not directed at the causes or root of the problems.
That is what this agency is all about. It concerns a new approach to look at the causes of the problems in Atlantic Canada. One of the causes of the problems in Atlantic Canada is the weakness of the private sector base. Therefore, through the creation of new small and medium-sized businesses across Atlantic Canada we will create this private sector base, which will mean more capital in Atlantic Canada.
If we have more capital we will be better able to develop our economy.

And the Free Trade Agreement will come on top of that.
For instance, in the riding of the Hon. Member for Southwest Nova (Mr. Comeau) . . .


Mr. Rossi:: He won't be there after the next election!


Bernard Valcourt: Yes, he will, because unlike the previous Member, the Hon. Member for Southwest Nova, an Acadian from Nova Scotia, realizes that the fisheries industry, for instance, is important to this area. Under the Free Trade Agreement, the people of Southwest Nova will be able to process their resources locally and export them to the United States duty free.
I fail to understand why people as intelligent as the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) are protesting against the Free Trade Agreement and the measures this Government is trying to take to revitalize the economy of Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, what the Minister has said is unmitigated nonsense. I have never heard the facts about Atlantic Canada so distorted or warped.
Certainly we could never accuse the present Government of throwing money at the problem because it has been taking money from Atlantic Canada. The Government attempts to suggest to Atlantic Canadians that it is improving their dignity by taking money from them since they do not really want this federal government money. It even suggests Atlantic Canadians will eventually be grateful for removing this money. That is absolutely insane politics on the part of the Conservative Government.
Not only will there be reduced funding as a result of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, as compared to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, in the last three
January 20, 1988

years the Government has also whittled away assistance for Atlantic Canada.
Furthermore, there is no mention of what will happen to the ERDA funds which have been put into Atlantic Canada once those projects are completed. The Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Senator in the other place, has stated that new money will be put into this agency. Clearly, it will not be new money because there has been no money from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion because it overspent by $900,000 in the first three months since last spring. There has been a freeze on all spending since then, including spending in Atlantic Canada. The Government is attempting to make it until the end of the fiscal year without spending any money on economically underdeveloped areas in order to impress Canadians that it can achieve a reduced deficit. However, it is maintaining a low deficit on the backs of Canadians who need assistance while giving it to those Canadians who do not need government assistance, including the wealthy, the privileged and big businesses of this country.
The Minister talked about reduced unemployment. There is no possible way to determine the real unemployment rate according to government figures. First, it will not allow its Manpower employees and counsellors to talk to unemployed people. Anyone who is unemployed will now have to go to the job board and try to obtain whatever job is available. We will be unable to ascertain from the Manpower offices exactly who is unemployed.
The only statistics we have now are from unemployment insurance cheques and perhaps some surveys. We do not know the true unemployment figure as we were able to obtain from Manpower previously.
The Government has further distorted the picture. The Government states that unemployment has come down in my area of Cape Breton. I have already stated that Manpower is unable to get an accurate figure on the unemployment situation. Second, those who are retiring and are fortunate enough to obtain a pre-retirement package are leaving without their jobs being replaced. While that represents a reduction in unemployment, those jobs are not being filled and most of our young people must leave the area.
Furthermore, there have been severe reductions in employment in our major industries in Cape Breton. Cape Breton Development Corporation has reduced hundreds of jobs. Hundreds of jobs have been reduced in the Sydney Steel Corporation and there has been the closure of our two heavy water plants and a total of 700 jobs there, in spite of the fact that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) assured us that such a closure would not take place until alternative employment was provided for those heavy water plant workers.
Those jobs were the kind of employment on which people could support families, perhaps buy a house and maybe send children to university. We have lost those jobs. In place of
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
those jobs there is part time employment at fast food outlets or department stores. There is no assurance that these jobs will continue. There are no benefits with that employment. How can one possibly build a future on jobs like that? That is what is distorting the unemployment picture in Atlantic Canada, particularly in industrial Cape Breton.
The Minister said he wanted to help Moncton. How can Moncton be helped when the Government does away with 1,200 jobs? According to the Government, this new agency is a benefit to Moncton. If so, why has it taken so long to introduce this legislation? I suggest the reason is that the Government did not want to spend the money in Atlantic Canada. The President will be living in Halifax and commuting to Moncton. That is his commitment, to stay on the job. It is ludicrous and insulting to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Not only are we losing money in regional development, the Government is decimating the whole program of assisting Atlantic Canada. Look at the programs the Government has done away with. Look at RRAP, the program which was so important in helping housing in Atlantic Canada and other parts of this country. The Government reduced the budget down to nothing. Not only that, but it made the criteria so difficult that people who need assistance are not getting it. The communities are not able to get these funds to give to people to help them improve their homes. This affects older people, unemployed people, who want to stay in their own homes but cannot possibly fix their homes up to a state where those homes will be suitable for habitation. That fund does not exist any more so those houses are falling into disrepair and eventually will be unliveable. We have not heard the worst of that crisis yet. It has only been three years since this Government has been in office and this situation is going to accumulate and worsen and the housing problem in Atlantic Canada will be a very serious problem indeed.
What about the off oil program? We were able to help people to have alternative fuels. That was done away with. What about the Canadian Home Insulation Program? That program helped people with insulation to help them save energy costs. With respect to the money that was spent by the former Liberal Government on energy, the best bang for the buck was in conservation. We were able to replace 75 billion barrels of oil a year just through conservation alone. What about Small Craft Harbours Program? Where is the budget of the Small Craft Harbours program? Ask any fishermen in Atlantic Canada and they will say it does not exist any longer. The fishermen are told that if they want to do anything they must pay for it. It is absolutely insulting.
Where is the job development program? How are we going to help our communities if we do not have a job development program for those areas which do not have the jobs? It is easy to say, "Let the private sector do it", but how are the people going to eat until the private sector does do it? What are we going to do for those people in the meantime?

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
What this Government is doing is gradually whittling away the programs and assistance that were in place. I am not saying that we should just throw money away. That is not what I am saying at all. I would like to say that I feel this program is going to work. 1 hope, in spite of all that my common sense tells me, that it does work, but I am very leary and concerned that what I see does not indicate to me that this program is going to work. There is no commitment from this Government. The evidence is everywhere that there is no commitment from this Government.
In Cape Breton, for instance, we have the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which is an agency that has been trying to replace jobs in that area which are so badly needed. The board of Enterprise Cape Breton has from time to time passed resolutions whereby it has approved certain companies for funding to establish industries in Cape Breton, only to have those recommendations turned down by the internal board of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in Ottawa. We cannot say that there is something about the air in Ottawa that makes them hate people from Atlantic Canada or makes them want to turn down job opportunities for people in Cape Breton, so what can we say? We are starting another board of directors in Moncton. Will that be any different? Are we just replacing one bureaucracy with another? This is no indication that anything is going to be changed. What we have done on top of everything else is politicized the board of directors that exists with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, further deteriorating the belief of the people in Atlantic Canada that this agency really wants to do something.
The Minister responsible for this agency, the Minister in the other place, has said that this is the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada, as if to say, "We just cannot be bothered with Atlantic Canada anymore. If they do not make it this time, it is their own fault. We are telling the people of Atlantic Canada that if it does not work, it is your fault, it is not the fault of this lovely, magnanimous, well-meaning Government". Who in Atlantic Canada is going to believe that nonsense? No one. Why is it the last kick at the can? Because the free trade agreement is going to put us into a situation where we are going to be inevitably drawn towards the United States. There is going to be an assimilation of the economy between Canada and the United States, and we are gradually going to get rid of regional development in this country. This Government is going to take it away from the people of Canada. There will be no regional assistance in Canada because the free trade agreement is not going to allow it.
The free trade agreement does not say we cannot have regional development and regional assistance, but if we do give it, it is countervailable, and that is the problem. So gradually regional development assistance is going to be whittled away by the free trade agreement.
We talked today about privatization. The Minister tells us that privatization has been most helpful for Canada. I wish Members in this House would ask the employees of Route Canada who have lost their jobs through closures. That is an
example of privatization. The company was formerly called CN Express, then it was called CN Route. This Government and Canadian National decided they were going to put the workers of CN Route into a catch-22 situation. They were going to show them, especially those people in difficult regions with economic problems, such as my region of industrial Cape Breton. So they went to the workers and told them they were going to separate CN Route from the Canadian National system, all the Canadian National companies. They were told they had the choice of becoming a CN Route employee or a CN employee.
The workers knew at that time that this was a catch 22 situation and it was the beginning of the end for CN Route in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Cape Breton, but what could they do? They knew that CN Rail and the other CN companies may go on a little longer and, hopefully, go on a lot longer, but we have so many lay-offs in CN Rail and the other CN companies that there is a seniority list of people waiting to get back. If these people chose CN they would not have a job. If they stayed in CN Route they would at least have a job for what they believed would be a short period of time. That was in the fall of 1986. Sure enough, a short time later, the federal Government sold CN Route to Route Canada. The workers were told not to worry because Route Canada would protect them until June 1 and that the Government had this great package available for anyone who loses his or her job prior to June 1.
The people of Canada do not realize that the Government sold CN Route for about $23 million, and the land and rolling stock of CN Route alone is worth $80 million. That is incredible. The Government gave the new owners of CN Route a giveaway, and all that these guys had to do was to hold on to these employees until after the Government was able to launder its handling of the situation, so it thought, and the Government would then be away from the situation and any lay-offs would be the sole responsibility of the new company, Route Canada.
That is what happened. Route Canada kept the people on as a private company until after the period of qualification and assistance came to an end. Then, in November, came the layoffs in a great many parts of this area. The terminal in Sydney was closed down. Not only was the terminal in Sydney closed down but other terminals in other parts of the country were closed down as well. The man who worked there had nothing- nothing.
One of the facets of the deal was that when the transfer took place from CN Route, which was the federal Crown corporation, to the private company of Route Canada, all the employees would be starting again. But now their seniority was gone. These people started out with nothing. They are people who had worked for federal Crown corporations in Sydney for as long as 46 years. They did not even have one year of
January 20, 1988

seniority to fall back on when they were dismissed by this new private sector company.
That is the treatment that the Government is giving to people when it talks about the successes of privatization. What about the successes in terms of decency to Canadians, to people who have given the best part of their working lives to working for the country and in particular for a Crown corporation? It is disgraceful when something like this happens to any worker, but particularly disgraceful when it happens to someone who has been working for a Crown corporation such as CN Route in Sydney or CN in Moncton. There is a situation in existence here that is just not palatable to Atlantic Canadians.
1 would now like to deal with the second part of the Bill. What we have here in the second part is that the Government will do away with the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It will form a new company called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. This is taking into consideration that there is already an economic development agency in Cape Breton called Enterprise Cape Breton. This new entity will be called Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. There is not even any originality shown by giving it a separate name. The reason behind that is, of course, that these two will be merged together gradually and we will lose one of the two.
What is happening is that the Government is saying, "This is even better for you people in Cape Breton because it will be a separate Crown corporation". That means absolutely zilch. It is not better at all. When we had the Industrial Development Division of Devco we had, along with the coal division of Devco, a separate Crown corporation. We had a separate budget. Now we do not have that separate budget. Money will be allocated. How much will that money be? We do not know. We have no idea. No longer can we do funding for infrastructure. No longer will we be able to have a separate decisionmaking power in Cape Breton.
The President of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, just coincidentally, is also the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. So what the Government is saying to the poor souls of Cape Breton is that it is giving them something. It will give them a little part of an Act, a build up and some directors. It will let them think that they are big stuff. But when it comes right down to it, they do not get a thing. That is the way this Government is. Cape Bretoners or Atlantic Canadians-people anywhere in Canada-do not get a thing, especially if they need it.


Mr. O'Neil:: Madam Speaker, as a Member from Cape Breton I disagree with much of what the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) has stated with respect to the Government's policies in regional development. When we talk about regional development it is important to acknowledge that national economic progress and national economic policies have a very significant impact on the people in the regions as well.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
For example, when we talk about lower interest rates we cannot talk about it as if the people in our regions do not benefit from lower interest rates. The people that I represent and, indeed, the people represented by the Hon. Member are paying less for their homes because they are paying less interest on the money they have borrowed to buy those homes. They are paying less for their cars. They have more purchasing power. They benefit from the lower deficit and from the lower inflation rate. They are benefiting from the lower unemployment rate.
The Hon. Member from Cape Breton-The Sydneys did not concede that the unemployment rate in Nova Scotia today is below what the national unemployment rate was when we were elected in the fall of 1984. This means that there has been substantial progress in combating unemployment in the regions. In fact, national economic growth is being shared all across Canada.
In Cape Breton, in Atlantic Canada, we have policies today of decentralization and autonomy that are bringing about substantial economic progress. In Cape Breton alone the unemployment rate in the last 12 months has dropped from 21 per cent down to around 15 per cent or 16 per cent. Our Government has committed millions of dollars to the tourism sector, the fisheries sector, the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector. In the riding which the Hon. Member represents there has been substantial progress in terms of economic growth with relation to industries being located in his riding, particularly in manufacturing. These are industries which could not be attracted and were not attracted during the last term of the previous Government.
Those are tangible results of the economic policies of the Government. These principles are being embodied and reflected in the Bill under discussion today. The Government's economic policies have worked at the national level. In Cape Breton we have progress on the regional level. In other regions there has been substantial economic progress as well. Our record is clear. In this Bill we see the Government moving on a broader scale to put in place the mechanisms that will help Atlantic Canadians achieve greater economic progress again.
Finally, I would like to say that any suggestion that the trade agreement somehow diminishes our ability as a country to continue our regional development policies and to expand them is just not founded on fact. In fact, the trade agreement is an instrument of regional development. The Atlantic Canadian fishery strongly supports the trade agreement with the United States because it means new and better opportunities and protection for existing opportunities that we enjoy in that fishery. The forestry sector of Nova Scotia has also supported the Canada-U.S. trade agreement because we will receive substantial benefits from this agreement.
Those who stand in opposition to this trade agreement stand in opposition to a very legitimate and real opportunity for Atlantic Canadians to take a fair and equitable place in the economic structure of Canada.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks in reply to the comments of the Elon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil). I thought that he would come to a point, but obviously there was not one to come to as far as he was concerned. He does not have much to work with when we look at the Government's program for Atlantic Canada.
The Hon. Member talked about decentralization. Let me tell the House about decentralization. There were four decentralized offices of Income Security planned for Canada in 1984 when the Conservatives took office. Three went ahead in Tory ridings. One did not. That was the one planned for Cape Breton in Sydney, a riding which happened to be represented by a Liberal. This was just the first instance of blatant Tory patronage. What did that do for Cape Breton? It cost us 85 jobs. It cancelled the training for people who were already in training, some of whom were almost finished the training for this decentralized office. They were told that they could go to Timmins, Peterborough, or Chatham. That is what they were told. That is the feeling, caring Government that we have here today.
The Hon. Member talks about how the fishery is protected. A great deal was made about how the Government was able to secure for the fishermen and fish processors in Atlantic Canada that their provinces could state that they wanted the fish processed in their particular province rather than taken out. That was a big deal. What the Government did not say is that under the GATT the United States still has the power to challenge that ruling, if a particular province makes it. That completely negates the benefit given. The only reason the Americans gave us that benefit is that they knew they had another avenue under the GATT to be able to get at us. Not only are they devastating the economy of Atlantic Canada but they are insulting the intelligence of Atlantic Canadians.


Jack Harris: I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) if he was paying attention to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) when he was talking about the regional development programs, and whether or not he is aware that under the Atlantic groundfish countervail case the following programs were recognized as being countervailable. They include the investment tax credit, the Regional Development Incentives Program, the IRDP, the ARDA agreements, the P.E.I. Comprehensive Development Plan, the general development agreements and agreements under DRIE, the transitional payments under DRIE and the ERDA agreements. All of those programs, which are regional development programs, are countervailable.
The Hon. Member will know that that case has not been affected one iota by the agreement signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan on January 2, 1988. None of those programs have been protected from a countervail under the trade agreement. Despite the fact that
this program is proceeding, it will not assist, and it will be subject to countervail if there is any export development or any complaint by Americans.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for that question. I did say that regional development was going to be phased out. That is why the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency could say that this was the last kick at the can for Atlantic Canada, because they are going to take the can away.
I did say that the regional development programs would be countervailable. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East for elaborating and specifying more fully exactly what we are going to be losing as a result.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on some of the problems of Bill C-103, the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Although it is well meant perhaps in certain ways, it certainly has some serious faults, which may or may not have been obvious to the Government when it drafted the Bill. Those problems need to be drawn to the attention of the Government, the House, and the public.
I am speaking on this Bill although I am not a representative in Parliament of an Atlantic constituency. 1 have not lived in the Atlantic area for any length of time whatever. I have visited friends there. I have visited in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and in Newfoundland. I hope to visit in Prince Edward Island. Most of my visiting was done before I became a Member of Parliament, but I hope to find time still to continue.
I am especially aware of a young couple in Newfoundland who settled there some years ago because they liked the people. They are hard working. They are raising a family and like to have the clean air for their children to grow in. 1 have met their neighbours who are also hard workers. The question arises in my mind, why do they get so little for their work compared to so many of my friends in central Canada?
From what I could see there and read about Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces, I think the answer is that they do not have control of their resources. Unfortunately, this Bill seems designed not to give them any more control of their resources than they already have. I read, for example, that in the last century, in the 19th century, and in the century before, a great deal of the timber was cut to build wooden ships. Two-thirds of the capital from those ships did not stay in Newfoundland. It went to Britain, to the merchants in Britain who controlled the capital used to cut the wood and build the ships. In other words, the product of the work of those Newfoundland people did not, for the most part, stay in Newfoundland to help build the country; to build the infrastructure, to build the workshops, the schools, the roads, the things that would have enabled Newfoundland to develop better than it has and more prosperously.
January 20, 1988

There was a huge iron mine near where those people used to live.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With all due respect, I must interrupt the Hon. Member.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the Port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
January 20,1988
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Judge Puisne of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th day of January, 1988, at 5.05 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-106, an Act to provide for the resumption of grain handling operations at the port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia-Chapter No. 1.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-103, an Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that it seems that the problem with the people 1 have met in Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada is that their hard work does not produce what it should because they do not control many of the resources upon which they work.
I gave the example of the timber, and I was speaking of an example of iron-the huge old iron mine at Bell Island near where my friends used to live, which was once the biggest in North America. It was owned by the British. The money, the profits, went to Britain of course. Very little stayed in Newfoundland. It is now almost a ghost town with about a tenth of the population they had there. Even of that tenth about 90 per cent are unemployed.
There is the pulpwood industry in which the profits go mostly to central Canada where we are now. There is the Iron Ore Company of Canada and the Wabash Iron Company in Labrador in which the profits go to the United States.
I do not see anything in Bill C-103 that seems likely to change any of that. In fact, it is not clear really what would be the final result, so far as building up the country goes, from Bill C-103. The immediate result is said to be giving $200 million a year for five years to Atlantic Canada. However, to take that in context, we find that that is perhaps a fifth or less than a sixth of the money that has been taken out of Atlantic Canada at an annual rate.
What we see is that during the past three and a half years some billions of dollars has been pumped out of Atlantic Canada if we consider that the previous programs of assistance were part of the funding of that area. DR1E spending cuts- they cut $200 million in 1984, $100 million in 1985-86, and $150 million in 1986-87. In the regional development envelope there has been a total reduction of $2.89 billion between 1984 and 1987, and so on.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
It is estimated that $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year was cut off from the funding that had been provided for Atlantic Canada. In its place only $200 million is being put back. When you take that all together, it is not a help, it is a cut. It is also a fact that the control of this spending will not be in Atlantic Canada. The controllers will not be Atlantic Canadians. The board may have Atlantic Canadians on it, but we are told by Senator Lowell Murray, the Minister responsible for this project, according to The Globe and Mail in June, that final decisions will be made by him in Ottawa. I am quoting here from The Globe and Mail for June 27, 1987: "Final decisions will be made by him in Ottawa. The ultimate responsibility rests with me and a Cabinet committee made up of six federal Ministers from the Atlantic region".
So much for decentralization. It is a bit like the Bank of Montreal when it puts a branch office in your neighborhood. That does not mean that your neighbourhood gets control of the Bank of Montreal; it means the Bank of Montreals gets further control of your neighbourhood. This does not mean decentralization in the sense of giving the decision-making power in Atlantic Canada; it means giving Atlantic Canada even less decision-making power than it might have had under the previous funding arrangements.
There is another very sad and very embarrassing aspect to this, Mr. Speaker. The rate at which Atlantic Canada has received assistance has been lower in many ways in many programs than the rate at which the rest of Atlantic Canada receives assistance. The one that embarrassed me particularly is that in Newfoundland there was a reduction of the GDA/ERDA program from $126 per person down to $80 per person, while in Ontario there was an increase from $2 to $3 per person. The increase is not big in Ontario, but Ontario is getting more from this program while Atlantic Canada is getting distinctly less under the same Government.
The essence of this program is the trickle-down theory. The money is to be given only to businesses, not to a municipality. Heavens, no. A municipality might be democratically controlled, it might be controlled by the people who live there and the municipality might use it to benefit the people who live there. It cannot go to municipalities. It cannot go to municipal infrastructure, which all the cities and all the provinces of Canada have said is needed. They have offered to go shares on a program with the federal Government. The federal Government has turned them down cold. None of this money will go to providing the necessary things to keep municipalities operating. Instead, the money will go to private business people. There is no criteria, no way of identifying the principles by which it will be given to this person, that person or another business, no criteria for the performance of the businesses. There will be a review five years down the road. Of course, the importance of five years is that it is after the next election.
The trickle-down theory, which has been used by this Government and by its predecessor Government, is very simple. The argument is that we pour money in at the top and some of it stays with the people at the top, some trickles down to the people in the middle and some trickles down to the people at the bottom. It sounds fine, unless you ask, where did the Government take that money from what it poured in at the top? We find over the years, and increasingly under this Government, that tax money which the Government poured in was taken from the people at the bottom. It was taken from the working people, the working poor, even from the unemployed of Canada, while some of the biggest corporations go absolutely tax free. The corporations, many of them, are not on the list when it comes to contributing the money, but they are sure there when it comes to taking the hand-outs.
So the story is that the Government takes the money from the people at the bottom, pours it in at the top and says "You lucky stiffs. If you live long enough, some of that money we took from you will come back to you. Smile". That is the trickle-down theory on which this program is built, Mr. Speaker. To add a little further injury, they are told, of course, that free trade will solve any problems that the rest of this program does not solve. Yet the same Government that is telling them that is the Government that has opened many of our industries, not just many of our industries but many of our services in Canada-unprecedented in international trade arrangements-are now open to American competition. For example, the Department of Supply and Services, which in 1984-85 spent $406 million in Atlantic Canada and is expected to spend a little more in the coming year, will be open to American suppliers who, with greater financial resources, may be able to undercut Canadian or Atlantic bidders. It is likely that they will get even less of that money than they have got in previous years.
What this program does is not to restore control to the people of Atlantic Canada over their own natural resources and over their own labour, which they must spend on what resources are available there, what this does is to remove control further away. The ultimate decisions, according to Senator Lowell Murray, will be made in Ottawa, except for those decisions which, according to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, will be made in the United States.


Iain Francis Angus: What is left?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My colleague asks what is left. I can tell you there is not much left for the people in Atlantic Canada. If this is the way the country is to go, there will not be many people left in Atlantic Canada.
This is not a hand-out for poor relations in Atlantic Canada. We are not asking for a hand-out for poor relations in Atlantic Canada; we are asking for justice, justice in the sense that the people who live there, the people who were born there who have chosen to settle in there, who have put their bodies, their lives and their families there, those people should have a controlling voice in the disposal of their resources, whether it is
January 20, 1988

timber, pulpwood, iron, other minerals, hydropower, tidal power or any other resource. They should have the controlling voice in the disposal of those resources, not the bureaucrats in Ottawa, not banks in New York City, but the people who live there. That is justice and that is what we are asking for.
My Party, the New Democratic Party, for example, would much rather see a Bill along the lines of what we have been advocating for over two years now. For example, we suggest a community initiative fund that would provide assistance to new co-operatives, community development corporations, small businesses and other community-based initiatives. We do not want to exclude individually privately owned businesses, and we do not want to exclude all the rest of the people, the big majority of the people, who have not been blessed with extra capital with which to be business people. We would also like to see a technological change fund to assist in private, public and co-operative ventures in high technology industries, in other words, target some of this money to where it can be viable in the modern economy. We would like to see a youth initiative fund which Canadian youth can draw on to encourage new initiatives. Again, the decision-making has to be local.
We would like to see a single industry community diversification fund to provide single industry communities with the means to explore diversification options. These towns, cities and villages in Atlantic Canada must be given back some of what belongs to them historically so that they can develop alternatives to the industries which are either exhausted because foreign entrepreneurs scooped out all the timber or scooped out all the metals, or else develop industries which would be more modern and more viable in the modern economy. As I said, there should be money for upgrading the municipal infrastructure, a thoroughly co-operative program between public representatives at all three levels of government.
Finally, there should be a decent housing program, not the kind that I saw when I was visiting Flalifax. Under the then federal Government, not the present Government, disgustingly shoddy houses were built by an entrepreneur, I am sorry to say, from Toronto. If someone is going to cheat the people of Nova Scotia, why could it not at least be a Nova Scotian? I do not really know why CMHC let him do that, but what is most embarrassing and most unjust is that those people did not even get the chance to be cheated by a fellow Nova Scotian. They were cheated by someone from central Canada.
What we need at the very least is considerable amendment of this Bill so that it will be recast in the direction of putting control of this money into the hands of the people of Atlantic Canada. That is the first thing needed. The second thing is to restore at least that level of funding, $1 billion to $1.5 billion per year, which the Government took away in the last three years. If that were done, this Bill might well be worth passing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Belsher):: Questions or comments.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested to hear representatives of the NDP espouse their philosophical purity and idealism concerning regional and economic development. It is a bit like going to watch a Walt Disney fantasy movie; it is so far from realism.
The people of Atlantic Canada know very well that government monopolies do not yield the economic results they want. The NDP obsession with government control is not what the people of Atlantic Canada want. They want control themselves and through this agency they are going to get control over development initiatives in their region.
For the first time we are getting a development agency that will be outside the Ottawa bureaucracy. Its board will consist of Atlantic Canadians who will make decisions and bring forward programs in the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They will be formulated by Atlantic Canadians. That is what we are doing in this legislation.
It is very similar to what has been done in Cape Breton with Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, an agency established by this Government, one which everyone who knows anything about regional development in Cape Breton will concede is a success.
The Hon. Member from Toronto spoke about the need for community initiative funds. There are such funds and they have been around for some time. There are federal-provincial agreements on technological development. There are special initiatives to involve youth. There are opportunities for singleindustry towns to diversify their economies. However, I and the people I represent know that the answer to their problems lies in the provision of long-term meaningful employment.
In that respect the record of this Government is unequalled in recent years. The people of our region are gaining improved employment opportunities, yet the NDP is against the tax credits which are bringing investment to Cape Breton, for example, and yielding better economic opportunities. They do not like the philosophy. They do not like private business which is putting people to work in Cape Breton. They are against foreign investment unless it is billions of dollars going into Oshawa. It is all right for General Motors to put billions of dollars into Oshawa but do not let the foreign corporations put money in the regions. That is not good.
The NDP are against the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which we believe will bring improved employment opportunities to the region. It is all right to have free trade in automobiles but not fish. Keep the Maritimers poor. Do not let them sell their fish freely into the U.S. It is all right for cars to go back and forth but not fish, or Christmas trees, or pulp and paper from Atlantic Canada. That is bad. Keep Atlantic Canadians poor.
However, we are going to tell them in Toronto that we are prepared to accept legislation which allows us to move forward and take our place in Canadian society. We are going to do it.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, if I may try to find a question in that comment, it seems to me there are two. One is the question of control and the other is foreign money.
On the question of control, I noticed that Clause 20(1), which perhaps the Hon. Member who just spoke did not have the time to read, says:
The Minister may make regulations
(a) specifying programs and projects in addition to those referred to in paragraph 13(c)-
In other words, the Minister can say which programs will get the money. Or, for example, Clause 11(1):
The Governor in Council shall appoint an officer to be the deputy of the
Minister, who shall be called the President of the Agency-
Isn't that nice? He gets to be called President. In fact, he is the deputy of the Minister. In other words, the chief officer of the board is just an appointee of the Minister. The Minister can put him in or take him out. The Cabinet can put him in or take him out.
Senator Lowell Murray says he and six federal Ministers will be controlling this agency. I agree with the Hon. Member about the possible evils of what he calls monopolistic government control, but the trouble is the Bill he is supporting is doing that very thing. It is increasing the bureaucratic control of Atlantic Canada by people lodged in Ottawa, especially in the Cabinet. It does not increase control by the people of Atlantic Canada. It may be that some of the people in Ottawa who will exercise that control will be Ministers originating from Atlantic Canada, but the longer they stay in Ottawa, the less they are likely to remember where they came from. The Minister is primarily a member of a cabinet, and they are not in a position where they have to listen. They can listen if they wish but they are not in a position where they have to listen to the board members who live in Atlantic Canada.
The other point of the Hon. Member was the matter of foreign money. He has not given us the slightest hint, and there is nothing in this Bill that gives us the slightest hint that the Americans are waiting to pour money into Atlantic Canada, or the Germans, or the Japanese. Yes, Litton Systems did. Litton Systems has put some money in there after the Government of Nova Scotia gave it a $6 million subsidy. One of the richest corporations in the world with one of the worst anti-union records in the world, it sold out its civilian operations in order to concentrate on producing munitions. It is going to produce the means of death in Nova Scotia with a subsidy from the tax-paying people of Nova Scotia. They will pay $6 million in return for the creation of two or three hundred jobs. That is the only kind of money we hear of coming in to Atlantic Canada from these people with the billions and billions that the Hon. Member hungers for.
In fact, we in Canada have the resources to do the development ourselves if the Government would not give away those resources to the U.S.


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member from Cape Breton referring to the issue of decentralization. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would comment on the following issue related to decentralization which I think bears some consideration.
If we use the civil service of the United States of America as a model, we see that in the United States of America about 12 per cent of the federal civil servants reside and work in Washington, D.C. In Canada 30 per cent of the federal civil servants reside in Ottawa. If the Government was serious about decentralization and having jobs throughout the country, it would not have an enormously large percentage of civil servants residing in the capital city. Those jobs and that work would be spread throughout the country, particularly in the regions of the country which fare so badly under the free enterprise system which requires government action and intervention to share the wealth. Would the Member like to comment on that?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, having 30 per cent of the civil servants living here is obviously out of proportion. It is far too high, but a law which says that Senator Lowell Murray and six federal cabinet Ministers will be making, as he puts it, all the final decisions, means that they are not going to spend all their days doing that. They are going to have a new bunch of federal civil servants here in Ottawa, not living down there, but here in Ottawa, helping them to make those decisions to control the lives of the people in Nova Scotia. They are going to make it worse, not better.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-103 concerning the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Well, we have been hearing about this agency for quite some time. It was in October 1986 that the Prime Minister announced his government's intention to take a different approach to regional development, that it would offer new programs. "A bold new approach", is the expression he used. We had not heard of it for quite some time, Madam Speaker, for you must realize that Atlantic Canadians had rejoiced following this announcement, because regional disparity is a problem which is not new in Atlantic Canada and several governments had done their utmost to try and reduce or eleminate all-together this disparity.
If some programs were successfull, others were not. But the efforts made in the past had nevertheless helped Atlantic Canadians improve their standard of living. In June, the government had announced the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We had rejoiced again because we felt that it was finally coming. But nothing happened, except for those press releases put out by various ministers on behalf of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. But they referred only to existing programs and never mentionned the funds which would be allocated to this new agency. Yet, the
January 20, 1988

government had emphasized that it would be spending $1.5 billion over the next five years. Although it was nothing to write home about, it was nevetheless enough to establish this agency immediately, without more ado. The government had claimed that this $1.5 billion would be new money on top of funds already allocated to various development programs.
We must wonder now whether this is altogether new money. This question has already been raised by several people, agencies and organizations in Atlantic Canada. When we consider in fact this amount, we realize that it is not much. We must realize that over the years, the amounts allocated to regional development programs had been reduced from $14.9 billion to $12 billion, a difference of $2.9 billion, almost $3 billion. That is on a national scale. The Atlantic region had been affected. As you know, Madam Speaker, whenever programs are cut, we, in Atlantic Canada, are the first to feel the pinch.
It goes without saying that we support the Government's decision to establish this agency. We want it to begin its operations right away. We wish it had begun a year ago. The government has waited until the Christmas break to introduce this legislation. Why did he wait so long? That is why we question the government's sincerity when dealing with regional development.
We were promised in 1986 there would be money, there would be a new approach but now, almost two years after, we are about ready. So much so that we were told: Hurry up, this must pass post haste. Yes, post haste because of the urgency. But we must also ask ourselves how come they suddenly realized this must pass? Had they done so earlier, we could have spent last year some $125 million, the allocation for 1987. This year there would be another $200 million. Questions must therefore be raised. We are in a hurry. But on the other hand we know there probably will be elections this year. So in fact there will be over $300 million to be distributed in Atlantic Canada. Not bad. Certainly not bad. And a lot is needed.

-$200 million for this years allocation and $125 million for last year. So there will be a lot of money available this year.

For that reason indeed I question this government's sincerity. And also for its lack of action on a matter that was very important for people in New Brunswick and even the whole Atlantic area.
Of course, Madam Speaker, you know what I am referring to. I am referring to the CN shops in Moncton. The new agency will have the mandate, a quite general one, to look for all sorts of ways to create new jobs, but also to create jobs that are there.
In 1984, there was in the CN shops in Moncton almost 1,200 workers who were earning good wages and enjoying good working conditions. But then the CN, in a rationalization effort, decided to shut down its Moncton shops.
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
1 am not denying that in the overall system some degree of rationalization had be done, some adjustments had to be made. But 1 what I am questionning is the need for that adjustment to be made entirely at the expense of people in New Brunswick, more specifically in the Moncton area.
I am also questioning the sincerity of the Government's intentions with regard to regional development. At no point did a single minister feel the urge to make his voice heard in support of workers in our area. We were ballyhooed, we were given promises, we were misled, and finally we were told it is in the process and then, as it happened two weeks ago, the shops' shutdown was announced.
Again, it would not be too late to act, there are still 350 jobs left in Moncton. Those jobs could be saved, if only they wanted to act. Because the shops located in Moncton comprise two components, the foundry and the rail shop, that are found nowhere else in the CN facilities-nowhere else in Canada. Which means that when the shops will be closed, that work will have to be done elsewhere, the know-how will have to be found elsewhere. But we already have in Moncton the workers, the expertise and the facilities.
Why then is the Government not seeking to protect those jobs? There is nothing foolish in trying to protect the 350 jobs that are already in place. Why then is the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister who has always said that he was taking particular interest in the frontier regions, why are they not doing anything? You would think the problem does not exist for them. Eight hundred of the 1,200 workers have already left and 350 more ... It is as though it does not amount to anything, yet it is a hard blow for the Moncton region.
A moment ago the Minister said that the city of Moncton had experienced a very good year in 1987 and he mentioned Mr. Paul Daigle, whom I happen to know very well. Sure enough, the Moncton region did have a good year. Indeed I was listening to Mr. Daigle when he said that in spite of everything, in spite of the closing of the shops and the loss of 800 jobs in Moncton the region did manage to make some progress. But when the Minister said that this was due to programs set up by this Government, well 1 think that is stretching it a bit. Mr. Paul Daigle said during a radio interview that if indeed there had been some development in Moncton in 1987 it was because in 1983 and 1984 his own organization, the city of Moncton and other associations involved in economic development had estasblished a number of programs which made it possible to report a positive performance in 1987.
So the Government and the Ministers should not think that it was their own measures which made it possible for the people of New Brunswick and Moncton to enjoy a good year. The people themselves knew what to expect, so they set up programs designed to protect them against such things as the shops shutdown.

January 20, 1988
Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987
So I ask you, Madam Speaker, how the people of New Brunswick can possibly have faith in this Government when it says it will deal with regional development. And of course I say again that we want this agency to take action as soon as possible.
This agency has a very wide mandate. It will work through associations and through small business, which is all very good.
Also, an objective of this agency is to look at the transportation system in Atlantic Canada. I think this is very good, but I do not know to what extent the agency will be able to act. Right now, the transportation industry in New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and all the Atlantic provinces is going through major changes. In the near future we will see a lot more goods being moved on rubber. The road system in the provinces will have to carry a lot more goods than it is presently carrying.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When debate resumes the Hon. Member will have two minutes left to conclude his remarks, which may be followed by a ten-minute period of questions and comments.
It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, January 21, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers