1988-03-01

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the fifty-second Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings].
*
*


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the [English] report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended	PETITIONS
March 31, 1987.


PROPOSED FREE TRADE
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, the 1987 annual report on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, pursuant to Section 10 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, and it would be permanently referred to the appropriate committee.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3879 to 332-3688, inclusive; 332-3810, 332-3811, 332-3873 to 332-3879, inclusive; and 332-3928 to 332-3933, inclusive.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a privilege and an honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition from a number of western Canadians who are very concerned that the federal Government does not have a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States, which they believe, of course, would challenge Canadian sovereignty.
They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively. As well, it effectively removes Canada's ability to develop its energy resources in the best interest of Canadians.
Therefore, they ask the Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada an opportunity either to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions on behalf of residents of the Ottawa area-the City of Ottawa, Kanata, and other parts of the capital area. They protest, with regard to the trade deal negotiated with the United States, that the 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 U.S.
This is in a context in which the agreement fails to achieve the secure access that the Government said was the key objective and ends up threatening the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.

March 1, 1988
Order Paper Questions
These petitioners from the Ottawa area call upon the House of Commons to dissolve to give the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject, as they expect, this agreement with the United States in a general election.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of the residents from Kingston, Ontario, Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Irishtown, Newfoundland and Vancouver, B.C.
These petitioners announced that more than 100,000 Canadians were homeless last year, that an increasing number of young people, women and entire families are without roofs over their heads that the number of affordable housing is constantly dwindling and that the Government has not yet introduced any new measures to help the homeless.
For these reasons and for many others the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act immediately and establish the necessary measure to ensure that all Canadians live in adequate and healthy housing and also have access to some rehabilitation process in order to re-integrate into Canadian society in dignity.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 226 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House the Question No. 226 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the latest date for which figures are available, how many Transition Houses or Crisis Centres for women are in operation in Canada?
2.	Have any of these institutions been assisted by the government?
Return tabled.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 249 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Boudria: Has the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) ever paid for a trip or trips to any other country for Mr. Jean-Paul Raymond or any other member or members of the Comite d'information et d'animation com-munautaire and, if so, for each trip, what was the (a) destination (6) purpose (c) cost per person?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has not paid for any trips outside of Canada for Mr. Jean-Paul Raymond nor for any member of the Comite d'information et d'animation communautaire.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is coming before us with Bill C-109 asking for Parliament to give the Government the authority to borrow $25 billion. We have debated this issue at this point in time for a total of four hours and forty-five minutes. That is a little less than $5 billion per hour. Frankly, when I look at the over-all thrust of government programs to date, or lack thereof, as a Canadian citizen who has been charged with the responsibility of representing my constituents, I do not think the Government has earned the right to be accorded this $25 billion.
There are many areas where the Government has not acted. Certainly one of the areas in recent times where we have seen a total lack of leadership has been in the Government's response to the Supreme Court judgment on the issue of abortion.
The federal Government instead of showing leadership on a very difficult issue has passed the problem to the provinces so that both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have allowed a chaotic situation to reign across the country because

March 1, 1988

they do not have the political courage to bring to the House of Commons some legislation to deal with this extremely sensitive issue for Canadians. That is one area where the Government is getting an F in its report card but there are many other areas.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel- Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) just pointed out the situation of the homeless. We have come out of the year of the homeless and what response have we had from the federal Government to deal with the killing issue for Canadians? Absolutely none. If anything, we have seen the Government divest itself of responsibility in the same way that it did with the Supreme Court judgment, namely, it passed it off to the provinces. We now have a situation where social housing in Canada is no longer under the leadership of the federal Government, but is passed off to the provinces. In fact, the only area where the federal Government has maintained sole jurisdiction has been in the area of co-operative and native housing where no kudos need to be given. This is another area where we have a total lack of leadership.
We heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) most recently lauding the fact that Canada is deemed to be the country among the OECD nations which has the largest growing economy for fiscal year 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Government Members are applauding. But what they fail to recognize is that at the same time we have these wonderful statistics coming from the mouth of the Minister of Finance, one in five Canadian children is living in poverty. In fact, we have a situation where thousands upon thousands of children are going to school hungry, and do not have homes. What kind of response have we had from this Government?
Under tax reform, the Government put one million poor people on the tax rolls for the first time in Canadian history- on the tax rolls, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance through the tax measures he has introduced since 1984 has brought onto the tax rolls one million people who were never paying taxes before. Now the Minister comes out with tax reform. He actually has the nerve to stand up in the House and beat his breast, saying he has taken 850,000 off the tax rolls. What he does not tell Canadians is that he and his Government were in a position to put one million new people on the tax rolls.


An Hon. Member:: What about all the new jobs that people have?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Now there are 850,000 people taken off the tax rolls. That is Tory tax reform. Take from the poor and hand out to the rich.
In our Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, we tried to have the issue of child poverty addressed as a priority. In fact, the child poverty action group implored us to do so. The Canadian Council on Social Development and the National Council on Welfare asked us to bring forward
Borrowing Authority
this issue as a priority issue. Instead, the committee on health and welfare has chosen to study mechanisms for financing health care, including trips to the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and I think Germany. We are taking a world tour to study health care when we should be looking at the question of Canadian children who are going to school hungry and are without roofs over their heads. In 1988 in an economy as vibrant as the Canadian economy the situation is a national disgrace and a national tragedy. How does the Government expect us to pass a blank cheque for $25 billion when it does not have the heart to care about the children in our country who are going hungry?
When the Minister of Finance is asked questions in the House about what he is doing with social policy, he just parrots OECD statistics, which do not mean a lot when you do not have bread on the table or a roof over your head.
I would like to spend a moment dealing with a much more personal issue to me. Over the years we hear many difficult and sad stories, we hear many stories that would break your heart. I had the occasion about two months ago to hear directly from a woman who did not live in my riding. She lived in a neighbouring community but had not gotten a response from her local M.P. so came to see me. She came because her son who was 17 years of age, a model student, a model volunteer, the kind of son any parent would love to have, had died. He had died after eating an apple turnover at an Arby's restaurant. The reason he died is that apple turnovers, unbeknownst to the young man, contained ground up hazel nuts, nuts so small they cannot be seen by the human eye. This young man had eaten apple turnovers at other restaurants. He had eaten them at McDonald's and at Harvey's. He assumed that an apple turnover is what it says, an apple turnover. He did not think an apple turnover was an apple and a nut turnover. He knew he had an allergy. As soon as he ate this apple turnover he started to have a reaction. He had been told by his physician that if he ever underwent an attack, which in the medical jargon is called a reaction of anaphylactic shock, that he would have time to get to the hospital. His mother told me this story. He jumped on his bicycle and pedalled home. He got in the front door and was barely speaking at that point. He was choking and losing consciousness. He asked his father for help. His mother told me that she did not even have time to say goodbye to her son because he was dead before she even had a chance to wake up. She told me that she could sue the company involved, but she does not want to do that because to sue the company will not bring her son Christian back. She said that she would like the Government to do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening to another young person.
This occurred in December. In my naivety, I believed that there are many issues that one comes across in political life, some of which are partisan and some of which are not. I felt that this was not a partisan issue. I felt that this was an issue

March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority
with which any parent could identify. Unfortunately, when the food and drug regulations were brought in this issue was omitted. It is not a sin of commission but of omission.
In the 1960s when food and drug regulations were brought in, the Government felt that when people went to grocery stores, they should be able to know what they were eating. They should be able to pick up a can of soup and read the ingredients on the label. We know that now, in 1988, the Canadian appetite for food is changing rapidly. We know that many Canadians eat out more often than they eat in their own homes. Why have the food and drug regulations not kept pace with the times? Why have the food and drug regulations not reflected the fact that most people do not always cook their meals at home? Many people are often forced to eat on the run, and it is not practical in 1988 to tell a person with an allergy that the only way to deal with that allergy is to eat at home.
I thought that I would speak to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) privately and tell him that there is obviously a loophole in the law. As I did more investigation, and I had some tremendous help, support and information from the Canadian Allergy Information Association and the president of that association, Mrs. Susan Daglish, I became aware of the fact that approximately one person in Canada dies every month as a result of an allergic reaction. We do not know how many more end up in hospital or how many more have unreported seizures, because that type of data is not collected.
I do know that I told the Minister that there seems to be a loophole in the law. I said that if we could get an agreement, perhaps changes could be brought in. I did not want to make this a political issue. I would rather have the Minister bring forward amendments to the Food and Drugs Act which would include labelling of fast foods, as a start. I recognized that this would not be an easy solution or a quick-fix. It would not save every life, because in some cases there are other impinging factors. However, it seemed to me to be a reasonable request.
In this day and age when companies are spending thousands and in some cases probably millions of dollars on fancy packaging and gimmicks to catch the eye of the consumer, at the very least Canadian consumers should have the right to know what it is they are eating. When Canadians go out to get an apple turnover or a hamburger, whether it is called a Whopper, a Big Mac or whatever, it would be nice for them to know what they are eating. Since that right was accorded to us for groceries back in the 1960s, and we know that today fast food is much more prevalent, why can we not have the same right when we go out to eat in restaurants?
I was a little naive. When I raised the matter with the Minister, he said he would look into it. I did not hear anything further for a month or so, so I decided, in order to stimulate the discussion, that I would bring forward a resolution. In fact,
I raised the issue with the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. I must say that the response of the Chairman, the
Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), who has a medical background himself, was most encouraging.
Conservative members of the committee agreed with me that something should be done about food labelling and, in fact, they summoned the Minister to come before the committee to explain why there is no requirement for labelling of fast food at the moment. What we heard was a litany of excuses longer than the menus at most fast-food restaurants. The Minister said he could not do it because some restaurants sell hamburgers and hot dogs in the same packages and, God forbid, some restaurants may use peanut oil when cooking. It was a response from a Minister who had made up his mind that he would not go ahead with this and who then needed to summon all his arguments as to why he could not. It was not the response of a Minister who should be showing leadership and telling his Department that he wants this done and showing the vehicle to carry it out.
No one is suggesting that if we legislated labelling all of the problems would be solved tomorrow and all the labelling would be proper as of tomorrow. Obviously that is why we have regulations. That is why we permit the Government, in its wisdom, to come forward with Governor in Council decisions relating to issues like labelling. There may be exceptional cases or anomalies that cannot be encompassed in the legislation. That is why we tell the Minister that he has the discretion to come forward with a package which will meet the basic need of Canadians to know what they eat and still take into consideration the fact that at some point there may be matters that are not covered by the legislation.
What I saw was a Minister who was simply prepared to come before the committee to give us a bunch of excuses and to even go so far as to blame the families of the victims, to blame people who died because there is no labelling on fast foods or restaurant foods; the victim did not know that in the case of an Arby's turnover, for example, there are hazelnuts ground up so fine that the eye cannot see them.
The Minister even had the audacity to suggest that people who have severe allergic reactions should consider not eating out. In this day and age the Minister should not be giving reasons and excuses, he should be coming forward with legislation to deal with the problem.
Certainly the members of the Health and Welfare Committee did agree that we should move with legislation on this. I am very sorry that instead of accepting the view of all the members of that committee, including the chairman who has a medical background, the Minister was merely there to provide excuses. Now he along with the rest of his Government is asking for $25 billion to carry out the programs of Government. He is asking for the authority to borrow money to permit the Government to carry on with its other functions. I say that in order for the Government to be accorded borrowing authority, it has to display some sense of responsibility.
In the case of the fast-food labelling issue, the Minister has not displayed responsibility, caring and concern for Canadians,
March 1, 1988

but merely a shallow, knee-jerk response, a litany of excuses. Frankly, it was something that I did not expect, even from that Minister.
The proof is in the pudding. I received some information in a phone call this morning. I have not corroborated it totally, so I am passing it along only for information and edification. I heard that at least two major retail outlets in the fast-food business have now decided themselves that they intend to label their foods. As I understand it, they are moving not to label foods item by item but to label foods which have an allergic potential, and certainly that could be expanded.
Flow can we accept the excuses of the Minister of Health who as late as last week said that this could not be done, when the fast-food chains themselves are now moving in that direction? The Minister of National Health and Welfare is not supposed to be a spokesman for what cannot be done for the health of Canadians, but a spokesman for what can and should be done.
[DOT] (M30)
Surely it is not unreasonable in 1988 to suggest that when you go into a restaurant you should have the right to know what you are eating just as you do when you cook a meal in your own home. It is shameful that these major hamburger chains have found the wherewithal to act when, last week, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said it could not be done. It could not be done because he did not want it to be done.
In his litany of excuses he kept referring to the fact that, oh, there were two deaths? Why should we worry about that? It is not just one or two deaths. He said some people are seeking a quick fix. No doubt he was referring to me because I raised it by way of resolution and asked the committee to deal with it. He said it is too bad a couple of people have died but let us look at consumer responsibility. Yet the more you delve into this issue, the more you realize people are dying in a way which is completely preventable.
I read into the record the case of a man who died at a New Year's Eve party, I believe, in New Brunswick; the case of a Chatham couple whose daughter died as a result of an allergic reaction; there are cases in Quebec and across the country. Yet the Minister was more interested in a knee-jerk reaction, in protecting his own political backside than he was in actually dealing with the issue, putting the health of Canadians first and foremost, and giving them a chance to determine that what they eat is not going to kill them.
Is it such an unreasonable request to have the Minister take up his responsibility and inform Canadians that what they are eating is not going to kill them? That seems to me to be a primary responsibility of the Minister. If he is not there to prevent people from dying, what is he there for? He is there for excuses. He is there to find reasons why not.
Borrowing Authority
I believe the issue of food labelling has the support not only of Members on this side of the House but the support, spoken and unspoken, of many members on the government side. I suggest to the Government, and the Minister in particular, that if they want the Opposition to approve the spending of $25 billion of taxpayers' money on various programs, then they should start dealing with programs not currently available.
One program that I would insist the Government do its most to introduce in this session deals with the whole question of food labelling. It is not enough for the Minister to ask why. It is time for him to say why not, and when and where and how, and to get on with it and start taking his responsibilities seriously. We intend to continue to press the issue both in committee and in the House. I believe it has all-Party support and I will certainly be continuing to press the Government, in the context of Bill C-109 as well as any other government Bill, to deal with the health of Canadians which it is not at the moment.


Mr. Brightwell:: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to comment on the speech we just heard from the Hon. Member.
I will not ask her a question but I would not be surprised if she wishes to comment afterwards.
I noted her comments about food labelling and I am sure everyone wishes that we could clearly state what is in the food people eat in a restaurant. However, I do not think she has outlined the difficulties. As a government Member I would like to see something done if it is practical to do it. I was also pleased that the Hon. Member did not use this issue to try and destroy an industry, for partisan political purposes, like she did in the mussels affair in the fall of last year.
The primary reason I stood up to comment concerns the record of this Government. Some 1.1 million more people are working under this Government than under the previous Government. Some 85 per cent of those are working full-time compared to 85 per cent part-time under previous Governments. Some 500,000 fewer people are living below the poverty line. A lot of those people are children. That is a tremendous record. Some 800,000 people have been taken off the tax rolls. The child tax credit has been increased and is being paid at a time most advantageous to the parents, just before Christmas. Because interest rates have gone down, so have housing costs.
Surely the Hon. Member considers this a fantastic record compared to that of the Government formed by the Liberal Party to which she belongs?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I could point out that over the 20-year history of Liberal Governments in Canada the average unemployment rate was 5.2 per cent, still far too high but a far cry from what we have at the moment. I do not think the Hon. Member should be bragging about current unemployment levels.
However, I would like to most strenuously object to the statement concerning my role as opposition health critic in relation to the poisoned mussels. It was the Minister of

March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority
National Health and Welfare who, in a completely inept but opportune way, issued an over-all health warning for all shellfish without even knowing the difference between a bottom feeder and a crustacean. He completely misread and misunderstood his own portfolio. This led to a tremendous decrease in the sale of seafoods of all kinds. Frankly, if I had been sitting in his chair I never would have issued such a warning. It was completely without any basis and displayed his ignorance of the seafood problem.
The point I would most like to stress is that the Hon. Member has said he would like to see fast-food labelling. When you are the Minister undoubtedly you have to look at the difficulties you are going to encounter in labelling fast-food packaging. The whole point of my 20-minute speech was to say that it is not enough to say these are all the reasons why we cannot do it. When you are a Minister you say, department, I would like to have labelling of fast-foods and I want a report on my desk within the next two weeks to tell me how that can be accomplished. That is why we have regulations and Governor-in-Council decisions.
There may be some areas where it is not workable. We are all reasonable people. We are going to sit down and look at those areas. However, you start not from the premise of what cannot be done but what can be done and go from there to bring forward labelling regulations. We are looking at it right now with respect to drug labelling.
1 must give credit to a Private Member on the government side, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin), who introduced legislation governing the labelling of drugs. Now the Government is going to move in that direction. The Government has tabled its intentions and is now seeking responses from consumers and the industry. The whole process may take a year. No one is suggesting it is going to be done overnight. However, the Government is saying it is going to find out how it can be done.
On food labelling, the Minister comes before the committee and says we cannot do it and here are the reasons why. He does not say we can do it. What I am suggesting, and hopefully my friend who sat on that committee on an interim basis, and 1 am not sure if he is going to remain as a permanent member, and his colleagues will prevail upon the Minister to bring in some substantive legislation and indicate his intention to move in that direction. He should say they are prepared to look at working out all the details.
Perhaps all the packaging cannot be labelled in as complete a way as 1 would like, but let us start by establishing our bottom line, seeing how we are going to get to it as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying it is not possible because someone from the Opposition raised it and I am not going to have a knee-jerk reaction just because a couple of people died. That is what I object to and that is why I am not going to support this Bill.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, the thing which strikes me about this issue of allergies, fast-foods, and the tragic deaths which have resulted therefrom is that it should be possible to stand up in this Parliament and raise a very important health issue without being attacked for trying to undermine an industry. Obviously every Party in this House is concerned about employment. Some of us believe that we have more effective policies for achieving those objectives, but surely the principle is that people have a right to know what they are eating, particularly when dealing with large fast-food corporations such as McDonald's, Harvey's, and other corporations which make a profit from food which many nutritionists will tell us has very little nutritional value.
Since these corporations are making a profit surely they could live within some community standards. The purpose of this place is to identify priorities. When there are deaths in the community it is the responsibility of this place to respond and take some action. We will figure out the details and determine what is possible and what is not possible, but we start with that principle. I think it is a mistake for back bench Conservatives to get up and simply defend the record of the Government.
My colleague has said that he is in favour of action in this area. Let him follow the example of some of his colleagues who have recently objected to government policy in a public way. Let him show some leadership. This is a crucial issue which involves people's lives and those corporations can make adjustments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am glad the Member raised the issue of corporations because, as I said, I received word this morning that at least two major chains are moving in that direction. It is ironic that even the major corporations are prepared to move when the Government said it cannot be done. Obviously it can be done and it is up to the Minister to show some leadership. That is my intention in bringing the issue to the fore. I hope that other government Members who do support the legislation will put pressure on the Minister so that he will finally at least follow the lead that has already been established by some major fast-food chains.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Madam Speaker, I used to have a lot of respect for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I am very disappointed and 1 am going to read the record of the debate they had last week in committee.
I would like to add my own personal experience. I have a 25-year old son who is allergic to nuts. He is married. I am in Ottawa most of the time but my children have the key to the house. He came to the house alone-my husband was not there-and he went for the cookies. He ate about six or eight cookies. It was his mistake, it has nothing to do with going to a public place to eat. It was in my house. He should have been careful but the reaction set in. His face gets all swollen, his vocal cords tighten up and he can hardly speak.
March 1, 1988

He dialed the phone number of my daughter who is married and has a baby son. She was alone at home but understood that he was in trouble and that she had to do something quickly. She told him to crawl to the door and open it, that she would phone the neighbour to go and take him to the hospital. She did not want to dress her child in order to take him to the hospital. He was taken to the hospital and, luckily, survived.
I was so touched by the story of my colleague, the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and I was so disappointed by the Minister's stand in committee last week. A strong Minister gives orders to his functionaries. In this case the Minister is being very weak. What does the Member for Hamilton East intend to do from now on in order to help people like my son?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, we are planning to continue the investigation in committee. We have made arrangements to hear from the Canadian Food Services Association and also from the Canadian Allergy Information Association. We are planning to pursue it and hopefully we can finally get the Minister on side.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the borrowing authority which the Government is seeking today for $25.3 billion raises the fundamental question of what the Government has done, what its performance has been. This question is raised by the simple fact that it is the prerogative of Parliament to approve monetary authority, spending authority, for the Government. The basis of parliamentary democracy is that the executive, the Crown, has to come before the people's representatives, the Commons, to ask for authority to spend money. The question raised by this borrowing authority is what is the record of the Government, what has it done, what have its policies been, and has it faced the issues of the day.
While it is often a mistake to respond to the remarks of a previous speaker and digress from your own prepared notes or the thoughts you had planned to bring to debate, today is an exception. The issue raised by my colleague with regard to the labelling of fast-foods in order that people who have allergies know what they are eating is an issue of the day which cuts to the core of the issue of borrowing authority, that is, the accountability of the Government to the people's representatives.
Over the last few weeks it has come to public attention that a person can go to a fast-food restaurant, eat food, and die as a result without having had any warning of this possible consequence. This has been broadcast by the media, people have approached their Members of Parliament, and the Commons has begun to speak. It is calling the executives to account, asking what it has done.
This priority requires action now. That it has emerged in the public spotlight only in the last few weeks is no excuse for inaction. Just because we call upon the Government to act speedily does not mean the action we are calling for is an
Borrowing Authority
ignorant, knee-jerk response to an onslaught of media attention. In fact, this is democracy at its best. The media has made an issue known and the Commons is bringing the issue forward and demanding that the executive take action rather than find excuses and be stuck in a morass of inaction.
I wanted to take the opportunity at the beginning of my remarks on this borrowing authority to echo the comments of my colleagues who said that it is time for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to ensure the labelling of food in fast-food restaurants as a priority and for him to tell his civil servants to bring forth a plan of action. He must put aside his behaviour which until now has been stalling, excuses, and responding to an industry lobby rather than to the needs of individual Canadians, the needs of young people who, because of the allergies from which they suffer, are playing Russian roulette with their lives every time they enter a fast-food restaurant. We require the food industry to label products in stores; surely we can also require that the fast-food industry label the foods which it makes available in restaurants.
That issue goes to the core of the whole question of borrowing authority. The Government, the executive, the frontbenchers, the power wielders, are coming before this humble Chamber to ask for authority to spend money. This is our opportunity to make the Government listen to the voice of the people and respond to their wishes. We must ask what it has done about the fundamental issues facing ordinary Canadians, when it asks for borrowing authority of $25 billion. For example, it has not yet acted with regard to labelling fast-foods for allergies. Hopefully, during this debate, some Members on the Government side will convince the Cabinet to take action in this area.
When we debate this Borrowing Authority Bill, we must begin by examining the Government's over-all budgetary policy. It recently introduced a rather slim Budget compared to previous budgets it introduced during its mandate. The most recent Budget outlined what the Government has done and what it would do in the future. Two of the initiatives the Government has taken in its Budget are tax increases. One of those tax increases is directly related to the Mulroney trade deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Many Members have been told on a number of occasions, and the Hon. Member knows very well, that they should refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) either by his title or by the name of his riding.


Cyril Keeper: Of course, I will follow the direction of the Chair. I was not referring to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), however. I welcome your guidance, but I was referring to the trade deal which has become known in this country as the Mulroney trade deal. I was not really referring to the Prime Minister in his office as-
COMMONS DEBATES________________ March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Canada and the United Stated have entered into a trade deal. It should be referred to as such. This is something that I, as the occupant of the Chair, have brought to the attention of Members on many occasions. I would appreciate Hon. Members not referring to the Prime Minister by his name but to use his title or the name of his riding, as with any other Member of the House. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I will not argue with the Chair. We still know that this trade deal is part of the Budget. The revenue to the federal Government will decrease as a result of the trade agreement because tariffs will drop. At the same time, the Government is attempting to replace that decrease in revenue by raising taxes by some $500 million in the Budget. The Prime Minister, who is even less popular than a former unmentionable prime minister, brags about the so-called great future that he believes this deal will bring to Canada. Yet we are already beginning to see the cost of the deal in the form of increased taxes that are directly linked to this trade deal orchestrated by one of this country's most unpopular prime ministers who, of course, earned that unpopularity.
While the Government seeks this borrowing authority, we must ask what it has done with the money it has taken from Canadians. When one considers the budgets brought down by the Government since it was elected, we see that it has hit the middle class families hardest in terms of tax increases. The ordinary Canadian family has suffered under the Government's increased tax, while at the same time the Government promised tax relief. It states that everyone will receive a tax break on their income tax, but it has raised taxes to such an extent while it has been in office that any relief in taxes now will still leave a net tax increase, mostly for middle class families.
The Budget promised further cuts in the deficit and further cuts in spending. If the Government plans to fulfill those promises, if it is successful after the next election, it will have to cut family allowances and old age pensions in order to meet those budgetary targets. If it is re-elected, the Government will have to take away services that Canadians have come to value. Therefore, on the basis of its budgetary policies, this Parliament cannot approve the borrowing authority request of the Government.
We cannot approve of what the Government has done. The generation before us in the 1930's fought for changes in social policy and met the challenge of identifying and addressing the key issues of the day. The CCF, and the NDP which followed it, which included people like Stanley Knowles, Tommy Douglas and the others who worked with them, helped to bring about medicare, old age pensions and other programs. The generation before us met the critical challenge of identifying these issues and succeeded in bringing about program changes that might make this a better place to live.
What has the Government done to face the key challenges of our generation? What has it done about poverty? What has it done about the environment? What has the Government done about human survival in the nuclear arms race? What has it done about employment and justice for all? Those are the key issues which must be addressed. Those are the substantive issues. It is not simply a question of what is reported on the front page of The Globe and Mail or who is being interviewed on The Journal. It is not a question of where the media focus is today or next week. Those are some fundamental and societal issues that have to be addressed in our generation if we are to achieve what our previous generation achieved, that is making Canada a better place to live.
I put that challenge to the Government. What thinking is it doing in these areas in order to bring about real change? We all know that something like one-fifth of the Canadian population suffers from functional illiteracy. They cannot read or write well enough to hold down jobs or function in our society. I have met such individuals in my riding and in the process of signing up membership in my own Party. Through the simple process of meeting people in one's constituency, asking for their support and getting them to sign up as members of one's Party, when it comes to the last step of the process, I find they cannot write their names or that all they can write are their names, or they have to put an X which has to be witnessed. There are people in our community behind the statistics which indicate there are real needs that must be met. Functional illiteracy is part of this whole picture of poverty.
I know of a specific case of a woman in my riding who has spent many years struggling with some disabilities and with the need for training. She has yet to receive this training. I brought this matter to the attention of the Canada Employment and Immigration Department. I am hoping for some progress in this area.
Another critical area that illustrates the whole question of poverty in our country is that of our homeless. There are people living in Canada who do not have a roofs over their heads. It is really quite unimaginable that we live in a country where some people do not even have a place to sleep. I saw statistics in a recent book of the numbers who are homeless in the City of New York and the City of Toronto.
The Government has come before us to ask for the authority to borrow over $25 billion. This is the House of Commons. This is the place where we hold the executive accountable. This is the place in which the king must answer for his spending. Therefore, we ask what the Government has done. The answer is in its budgetary policy. It has hit the middle-class families. What has it done about the key issues of our generation, about poverty, the environment, nuclear arms and unemployment? There is silence when that question is put. The Government should get on with meeting the essential priorities of this nation. It should act on some of the immediate priorities, including the question of allergies, fast-food outlets and
March 1, 1988

the need for labelling. When the Government comes before this House it should be capable of saying it has taken action rather than responding to the question with silence.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I was interested in listening to my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), as he commented on the programs of the Government and dealt critically with its request for authority to borrow as much as $25.3 billion in the next fiscal year, 1988-89. 1 take it from his observations that he is very critical of the priorities of the Government. I would like to ask him if he would expand on that somewhat.
On the one hand, the Government, even with its determination to reduce the deficit, to try to limit the growth of the national debt, has to admit failure. The national debt has grown very largely. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has to accept credit for the addition of $1 billion and more to the national debt. The deficit reduction program is clearly stalled somewhere in the $30 billion range. One recognizes, of course, what the Department of Finance and the Canadian financial communities seem to have imposed on the federal Government a couple of years ago that the deficit dare not exceed $30 billion. Therefore, by hook or by crook, by every possible means, it will be kept under that. It is surely a confession of failure to have the deficit reach that amount.
On the other hand, the Government has failed in so many areas. The Hon. Member was dealing carefully with those various shortcomings, and the actions that the people need to be taken, which have not been taken. I wonder if the Hon. Member would take up this topic of failure of the Government, on its own assumptions, and the creative possibilities of meeting the needs of Canadians, using the borrowing power of the Government in that sense and perhaps finding $25 million quite acceptable, but doing it in a context in which we could get the country back to full employment, being able at full employment to balance the budget and reduce the deficit about which the Government is so worried. To achieve the prosperity and well-being of the Canadian people has always been our concern as New Democrats, even in the earlier days of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and to fulfil the vision that moved our founders who came to public life with the determination of the social gospel.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the interesting thing about the whole question of deficits and borrowing, more particularly about deficits, is that while parties of the Conservative persuasion, whether in Canada, the United States or in other countries, tend to talk about spending less, parties of the Social Democratic persuasion such as mine tend to talk about the worth-while expenditures which need to be made. But the thing that strikes me most of all is that even when a Government of the Conservative persuasion takes power, spending does not seem to go down. It spends for different things. Different people get tax breaks and different people get the benefit of the public treasury.
Borrowing Authority
I think right now of the Government's policy of tax reform in its last budget in which it continued its pattern of increasing taxes on the ordinary Canadian family. At the same time it continues the policy of failing to tax large corporations which are making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. In other words, corporations which make a profit pay no taxes as a direct government policy. At the same time the Government raises the taxes on middle-class Canadian families. When push comes to shove, we know that when a Government comes into office and tells us it will not waste money, it will not spend unwisely, that it will be frugal, what it in fact does is simply shift around the spending.
We can look at the American example. President Ronald Reagan cut deeply into social programs and expanded the military budget. He ballooned the military budget. I must say it is sad that the Canadian Government is starting to reflect that same set of priorities in which it, with its most recent Budget and expenditure announcements, is expanding the military budget at the same time as it continues to hold social programs under threat. When it comes to spending and deficits, it is not a question of spending or not spending, it is a question of where the spending is and what are the priorities.
Therefore I ask the question, what has the Government done to address the critical and key issues that face our generation, the questions of poverty, homelessness, and functional illiteracy? What is happening with regard to employment for all? There are one million people in this country looking for work who can find no work. There is still a differential between what men are paid and what women are paid. Native people in this country suffer from extremely high levels of unemployment. On Indian reserves there is something like 80 per cent unemployment. If that existed for white, European ancestry Canadians we would have a revolution in this country. Why do we tolerate those types of injustice? Why has the Government taken no significant action in those areas?
What about visible minorities in terms of employment? There are ethnic people who come here with talents, abilities, skills and qualifications who are not recognized and who must be recognized. There are people from other countries who are trained as doctors, nurses, architects, and engineers whose qualifications are recognized in the United States but are not recognized here. What about a little justice. What about a little action. If it takes a little expenditure, why do we not do it in this area instead of forgiving the taxes of those 60,000 Canadian corporations that have profits of hundreds of millions of dollars and pay no tax. When it comes to deficits, when it comes to borrowing, it is a question of where is the Government spending the money and what are its priorities.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to participate in the debate on the request by the federal Government for authority from the House of Commons to borrow $25 billion. It gives me an opportunity to address

March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority
and focus on the Government's fiscal arrangements and plans following on the heels of the most recent Budget.
Many things have been said about the Budget by many commentators. I have the honour of representing the riding of York West in this Chamber. In my opinion, the recent Budget is mostly about taxes and missed opportunities; taxes, which come after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) very clearly stated during and immediately after the last federal election that they would not impose tax increases on Canadian citizens; missed opportunities, because yet again it was another window of opportunity to redress some of the unfair measures experienced by Canadians. A Budget should be an attempt to redress, balance, and ensure that there is equity and fairness in the system for all Canadians regardless of who they are, what they make, or where they live.
It would be incorrect to focus on one Budget at the exclusion of the other Budgets that have been presented by the Government. Those Budgets should be taken together and addressed as a collective package that signals a direction in which the Government wants to take the country. However, this is primarily a Budget about increased taxes which runs contrary to the commitments that the Government and its leader so clearly posed to the Canadian electorate.
In spite of what the Minister of Finance states, there are more tax increases in 1988 than indicated in the Budget. First, previous Budgets have considerably increased taxes. Second, the Government has built in tax increases. The tax system through tax brackets, family allowance, and child tax credits has been partially de-indexed, so those are hidden increases. Third, tax reform has also introduced new tax increases for 1988. There has been a 10 per cent tax on long distance calls for a value of close to $900 million. There has been a 12 per cent tax on wallpaper, paint, and related products for a value of close to $60 million. There has also been the excise tax on gasoline.
Since the Conservative Party took office in September, 1984 the excise tax on gasoline has been increased by 5 cents a litre or 23 cents a gallon. Think of that, 23 cents a gallon, Madam Speaker. Some time back Canadians made a very clear determination about a previous Tory administration that wanted to increase that tax by 18 cents. That 23 cents a gallon is made up of the following increases. In September, 1985 there was an increase of 2 cents a litre; a further 1 cent increase in January, 1987; another 1 cent increase in February, 1987; and with the latest Budget there will be another 1 cent per litre increase in April of this year.
Another statistic of which we must be cognizant is that since the Conservative Party came to power in 1984 the tax paid by individuals has increased by 68 per cent. If one translates that into a dollar value it is $29.3 billion. In comparison, taxes paid by corporations only increased by 28 per cent or $2.6 billion. On top of that, if that is not enough of an imbalance, there are 60,000 profitable corporations in our communities that do not
pay taxes, even after the much heralded tax reform package of the Government.
The impact of the inequities of this tax distribution will be painfully experienced by average families across the nation. For a family of four, comprising two adults and two children, whose income is $32,000, the tax increases brought about by the cumulative effect of previous Budgets aggravated by this Budget will amount to $1,200 per family, even after the tax reform announcements by the Minister of Finance.
What does that mean in real terms for the average family? I did an analysis up to the 1987 Budget which was aggravated by the numbers presented by the Minister a few short weeks ago. After the 1987 Budget the cumulative effect on a family earning $15,000 was to increase the share of their taxes by close to 70 per cent compared to 1984. In an income bracket of $30,000 there was an increase of 17 per cent. For a $50,000 wage earner there was an increase of 9.5 per cent. A person who earned over $100,000 had an increase of 3.8 per cent. On the one hand there is a staggering 70 per cent increase on a family least able to afford any increases, and on the other side of the equation there is not even a 4 per cent increase for a $100,000 wage earner.
When one looks at the tax system, the tax increases, and the disproportionate amounts that Canadians have to pay on their salaries, those increases have to be described as inequitable and unfair. As our Leader pointed out in his address on the Budget, one could discuss the entire Budget and the Government by talking about two different types of Canada and two different types of Canadians. We have fiscal measures which impose disproportionate increases on those individuals earning from $15,000 to $20,000 per year. When we see families earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year paying very little increase and corporations not paying a cent, we must begin to ask ourselves what type of country we are trying to build.
People are coming to me in my constituency with the everyday problem of trying to make ends meet at the end of the month. Working husbands and wives with families who are trying to carry their mortgages, educate, feed, and clothe their children are all too often faced with a desperate situation at the end of the month. They are beginning to say that those people who consider themselves to be part of the middle class segment of Canadian society are Finding it more difficult to stay within that middle class.
It seems that the growing disparity, which is aggravated by Budgets, is beginning to erode the middle class segment of society. We have individuals who once considered themselves to be in the middle class of society falling either on the side of the "haves" or unfortunately and regrettably on the side of the "have-nots". That is the gulf of disparity between the two Canadas upon which the Government and Parliament should focus. That is the gulf of disparity which is the result of


March 1, 1988

statistics that can be quoted to prove any point. We must try to bridge that growing disparity rather than fuel or increase it.
If we look at a number of socio-economic problems in society, we can draw a link to the impact of fiscal measures and Budgets on Canadians. Here we are in 1988 in a very prosperous, fortunate, and progressive country like Canada. However, have we ever asked ourselves, when we visit Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, which are among the more prosperous centres in our country, why the line-ups at the food banks and soup kitchens are getting longer? Why is it that churches in some of those cities are collecting and distributing food on Saturdays and Sundays for those who cannot provide for themselves? Line-ups such as these were not even seen at the height of the depression many years ago or even when we were in the crisis of war. However, these line-ups not only exist in 1988 but they are getting longer.
Food banks in Metropolitan Toronto are getting busier. For example, the North York Harvest Food Bank in my riding is continuing to mobilize its citizens to collect food for those who cannot provide for themselves. Many people in my working class-middle class riding of York West cannot believe that the problem exists. Perhaps it is more of a hidden problem and this is why the food bank has trouble trying to mobilize Canadians to help their fellow man.
We have tried to help the North York Harvest Food Bank by having Christmas food drives, not only to increase the intake of food but to educate and mobilize the Canadian community to rally for its fellow citizens.
In terms of more collective or global imagery, what does it say for this country when we have growing line-ups? It says that something, somewhere in the system, must be incorrect. If those men, women, and children who line up for soup, sandwiches, and other groceries had an option, they would not do so. There might be some abuse here or there in terms of people who come to expect it or come to rely on these line-ups. However, the vast majority of individuals would not be there if they were able to fend and provide for themselves. I cannot think of anything more humbling or more shameful to the individual sense of pride than telling society, by the fact that they are in a line-up, that somehow they have failed to put food on the table for their families. That is a profound statement. It attacks the very sense of identity or sense of purpose of Canadian citizens.
Thank God for the churches and the non-profit organizations which have picked up the slack in trying to meet that real need. These line-ups should be a signal to the elected leadership of the country in this Parliament that something is wrong and that it must be addressed. Through fiscal management, through our Budgets, and through planning how money is spent, we can alter the status of the undignified identity of lining up in the mornings and evenings. We cannot allow it to go unnoticed.
Borrowing Authority
Why is it that there are more homeless people in society today? Why is it that major centres with the greatest prosperity have the largest number of people who are homeless or do not have shelter? Once again, thank God for non-profit organizations, churches, and the various other elements in our community which have mobilized to try to come to grips with that situation. Is it not a by-product of something which is wrong in this system? Why is it that poverty is on the increase? Why is it that an increased number of single, female-led families now find themselves below the poverty line? The mother or both parents are to fend for themselves, but we do not have adequate day care facilities and their children are unattended. Does that not then become a societal problem rather than an individual, family-related difficulty which they must overcome?
What about the number of job increases which the Government likes to read out in the House of Commons every second Friday afternoon when it gets the statistics? What about the fact that the majority of those job increases are part-time jobs, low-paying jobs, or jobs which do not offer security from one Friday to the next, despite the bravado imagery of the Government saying that it has somehow succeeded in creating the types of jobs Canadians want?
What about the different regions of our country, not the Torontos, the Montreals, or the Vancouvers? What happens to the Monctons, to the Sault Ste. Maries, and to the Sudburys of the country? What happens to single industry towns that do not enjoy the same benefits as fellow citizens in other centres? Can we not begin to redress those imbalances as well?
Of course we can, if there is the political will, the political courage, and the political dignity to say that it is not a question of how much we spend or where we spend it, but a question of how we spend it, how we create Budgets, and for whom the fiscal measures are intended. Are they to widen the gap? Are they to increase the line-ups? Are they to keep the Monctons of the country Monctons rather than to have them become centres of prosperity? Are they intended to increase the number of single, female-led families now below the poverty line?
If we have the collective courage to try to redress the experiences faced by such Canadians, why do we not do it? Why is it that a family which earns $15,000 a year has an increase in its taxes by closes to 70 per cent while a family earning $100,000 has to face an increase of only 2 per cent?
All Canadians are realistic about taxes. They know that taxes are here to stay. They do not mind using the tax system to provide the goods and values that we have as a social contract in Canada. We do not mind paying our way to provide a health system, a school system, a system of civilization that many other countries do not have. I think of those countries we visit during our vacation times which have beautiful resort areas, that provide us with satisfaction for a

March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority
week or two, countries where, if we go beyond the periphery of the resort area, we see how other people in this world live. When we return to Canada we give a degree of thanks for the system that we enjoy. We also realize that we have to pay for our system. I believe that the average Canadian in my riding, and in yours, Madam Speaker, is realistic about the system and the costs of maintaining our lifestyle.
Canadians are becoming frustrated and angry when they perceive, and know, that different Canadians are being asked to pay a different amount for the system. That is where disparity starts and cynicism is bred. That is where Canadians become less enchanted about Canada and the lot in which they find themselves. If people felt that the burden was shared, being carried by those who are rich, wealthy and who have worked hard to reach that position, then the inequity would be removed.
For the first time, according to our polling studies, people are beginning to classify themselves in class structures. I close by saying that is, indeed, a very dangerous signal to our elected leadership. Lord knows, we have had our differences and fights between east and west. We have had them between the anglophones, the francophones and the multicultural communities. We have tried to bridge those differences. Never have we in Canada had the struggle which other countries have had, like Great Britain, over class stratification. Yet for the first time in Canadian history, according to our polls, the reaction of Canadians is beginning to indicate that there is a greater class stratification taking place, a stratification between those who are in the have and have-not categories. This is the stratification of two types of Canada. I hope that the Government comes to realize that that gulf of disparity between those two Canadas is widening, and that it is time for the bridge to be built once again.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the speech by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism working together in that vital aspect of national life.
I was interested in the earlier part of his speech in which he spoke about the lack of fairness in the Canadian tax system. He stated some of the most important statistics, such as the reality of 60,000 profitable corporations which are not being taxed at all, along with the failure of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to tap profits which might be used very easily to reduce the deficit and the borrowing which is such a burden on Canadians.
1 was interested to hear the Hon. Member from York West, who is a Liberal Member, talk about these things. He spoke about the growing disparity and the development of wealth for some few and the experience of poverty for others, but that predates 1984. The situation has certainly been getting worse and worse to such an extent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognized last year that we were developing two Canadas. He expressed alarm, although when you see what his
Government has been doing you would think it was fostering a prosperous Canada, letting an undeveloped poor Canada develop and that that is the way it will be. But that predates 1984.
The tax system we are talking about, which admittedly has been made so much worse, is one that developed from the 1970s, from the time the first Trudeau Government buckled under enormous corporate pressure and abandoned the principles of the Carter Royal Commission on taxation. We had the Benson budgets in those days and changes to taxation which the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) as Finance Minister a dozen years ago and more was perpetrating at the time. These are the people who built the system.
I find it a bit contradictory that my good friend should be making this fine speech, when his leader is as responsible as anyone for the early development of this system which had really unfortunate social consequences by the late 1980s. I invite the Hon. Member's reaction to the observations on political contradictions which the Liberal Party is having to experience.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I took great pleasure in the fact that the Hon. Member and I used to be good friends.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Well said.


Sergio Marchi: 1 thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) for his observations. There is a vertical mosaic in this country, quoting Julian Porter's book, but to a certain degree I think the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay is misrepresenting what I have tried to convey to this Chamber. I am not here to make a defence, to apologize for any previous administration. I challenge the Member to go back to the days when Canada was led by a Liberal Government. We had a poll the other day which compared the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with the Government of Mr. Trudeau. The numbers painted a very interesting picture of how Canadians judged a Liberal administration compared to a Tory administration. If there are people, particularly among the New Democratic Party, who suggest that there is no difference between a Tory and a Liberal, let the numbers speak for themselves and let this philosophy of their vision of Canada as defined through budgets lay to rest those questions fueled by individuals who want to blur the picture.
Canadians came to realize, particularly after the expectations generated by this Government, the very simple and clear difference between an administration led by a Liberal Party and an administration led by a Conservative Party. Under those Liberal administrations, I challenge the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon to show me one instance when the regions were cut adrift as they are today. Show me an era when the food bank lineups were longer than they are today. Show me an era when the disparity of income tax distribution
March 1, 1988

was such that a person earning $200,000 had an increase of 2 per cent while an individual earning $15,000 had to submit to a 60 to 70 per cent increase. I challenge the Elon. Member to provide me with those details.
1 am not suggesting that all the ills were cured by previous administrations. We have continued Government in order to try to better the lives of individuals and to try to make society a little more progressive than it was when we found it. In those previous administrations though, there was an attempt to bridge the gulf that existed then and that is being aggravated today.
I ended my earlier remarks by dealing with the question of polling. That too is a very interesting phenomenon. When Canadians were polled about their views under previous Liberal administrations, never did it surface that there was a perception of class stratification, the perception that Canadians were being compartmentalized according to what they earned and the lifestyles they were able to enjoy. For the first time in a long time, Canadians are beginning to perceive themselves and society in terms of class stratification. We should avoid that and take the lesson of the difficulties in Great Britain.
Great Britain too is a world power and certainly a strength to be reckoned with. In Great Britain, there are very monumental problems with the perception of class stratification. We in Canada have always avoided those struggles that pit one Canadian against another, based on class.
I suggest to the Hon. Member, whose Party has not had any experience leading the country on a national level, and probably will not have that experience for a long time to come, that he also deal with the facts and ask Canadians to measure the administrations they have experienced. The Hon. Member will find the same result that this recent poll illustrated, which is that previous Liberal administrations were respected for their leadership, their integrity and their vision of things to come. They were not perceived as Governments that were bankrupt based on commitments, and bankrupt in a clear direction with which to take a progressive Canada, taking only one type of Canada forward and leaving the other behind.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I would have hesitated to rise, knowing that others might want to join the debate, but my friend-although it may be a trying friendship-has challenged me to say something about specific matters. Let me point to one general and one specific matter regarding the failings of the previous Liberal Government.
I remember very well the disappointment felt by local Governments when the Trudeau Government decided to cancel the Winter Works projects which had begun first under the Diefenbaker Government back in the 1960s. Those programs allowed local Governments to obtain federal government assistance to carry out construction projects in the wintertime. The cancellation of those programs was one of the ways regions were slighted in their development possibilities.
Borrowing Authority
More specifically, I think of Thunder Bay, which is not exactly a one-industry town, though still all too dependent on transportation and resource industries in northern Ontario. That community was put by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in the same category as Metro Toronto when it came to obtaining assistance for local industrial development. It was regarded as being in the prosperous half of the country. We certainly felt cast adrift by the Liberal Government, even though we had strong representation, it would seem, from previous Members like Mr. Robert Andras who held cabinet positions in the 1970s.
I realize that I will not have the time to do my harangue on the shortcomings of successive Liberal Governments and the way in which Trudeau Governments disappointed the Canadian people. For example, the first Liberal Government of 1968 held the just society vision which so failed the Canadian public that the Liberals almost lost the 1972 election. Over the next two years it was more responsive to the Canadian people and won the 1974 election. 1 could go on with this record of political infamy, but I realize that I am transgressing the limits of time. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to say that much.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking a great risk. He mentioned former Liberal Governments and used the example of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I challenge the Hon. Member to compare the record of his Leader and past NDP Leaders with that of Mr. Trudeau and let Canadians judge. If he were to take me up on that exercise, I think he would see the confidence that Canadians perceived under those administrations.
It is one thing to ask Canadians to comment on a Government during the life of one administration because there are always the gives and takes, the passions of the immediate debates, that cloud the imagery. It would be very interesting to look into Canadians' perceptions of those Governments after they have come and gone.
When we go into the next election, that perception will be weighed very heavily and very carefully. Canadians will begin to compare what they have had for the last four years with the programs, policies, leadership and honesty they enjoyed before. I am very comfortable with and confident of the outcome. I hope you are too, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you will find that upon completion of the debate on Bill C-109, if a recorded division is requested, it would be deferred to 3 p.m. this day. When the question is put at 3 p.m., the division bells will be rung for 15 minutes. The Government would undertake not to call any further business and in fact, after the vote is deferred, we would call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?

March 1, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until 3 p.m.
Further to that order, with unanimous consent, we will call it one o'clock. It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 12.47 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, is quoted as saying that the Prime Minister's Government has enlisted in the Ronald Reagan pollution camp by backing an American bid that will increase acid rain. Canada did not join a group of European countries at the meeting in Geneva last week which called for a 30 per cent reduction in pollution through car and truck emissions. A leading anti-pollution lobbyist yesterday repeated the attack, charging that Canada's negotiating stance is outrageous. "Canada has abandoned the moral high ground where we are one of the leading countries in support of actual emission reductions," said Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain. "The Reagan administration people will view this as overt support for their position that more research is necessary," he said.
I urge the Government to reconsider its backward position on this very important matter.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in thirty years, the Government's revenues will exceed expenditures by nearly $3 billion, if we exclude interest charges. Our Conservative administration is able to pay its operating costs. However, since the Liberals, with the help of the Socialists, put this country into debt, we still have to borrow to pay the interest on the nearly $300 billion debt run up by the Socialists and the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, for six days Opposition speakers have been arguing against a Bill that would authorize the government to borrow the amount it needs to pay the interest on their debt. Why is a former banker like the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) against paying interest charges, Mr. Speaker? If this Bill is not passed, who will pay the Government's interest charges?



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, AZT, the only drug proven to relieve suffering for AIDS victims, has come under the exclusive control of a multinational company, Burroughs Wellcome. Without owning a patent or even having any unique knowledge, Burroughs has legally ensured that no one else will be able to make or sell AZT.
After agreeing to 18 months of clinical studies in Canada, Burroughs reneged on the deal and issued the Government an ultimatum: Gouge patients almost $1,000 per month and license AZT for prescription sale or the supply will be choked off. Instead of invoking the Drug Price Review Board, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) gave in to the company by issuing a limited notice of compliance.
This company is ensuring its continued monopoly of AZT by limiting and delaying further research into its AIDS treatment. Canadians reject the notion that private profit can be equated with public responsibility when it comes to health care. The experience with Burroughs reminds us to be ever vigilant of the Government's oft stated-
March 1, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: The Eton. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Armenians around the world I call upon Mikhail Gorbachev to return the territory of Karabagh to Soviet Armenia. The decision to separate this territory in 1923 was an injustice. Over one million people, one-third of the population of Soviet Armenia, conducted peaceful demonstrations of solidarity over the past two weeks to demand reunification of Karabagh with Soviet Armenia, based upon the Constitution of the Soviet Union.
I call upon my Government to condemn the violence occurring in Azerbaijian against Armenian nationalists. So far over 70 Armenians have been killed in this violence. Through his policy of glasnost, Mr. Gorbachev promised an open society where human rights would be recognized. We trust glasnost will result in a just and peaceful solution for the Karabagh region.


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, like tens of thousands of other visitors to Calgary, Geills, our daughter Elizabeth, and myself were thrilled at the first rate Winter Olympics put on by a world-class city. Frank King and that tremendous throng of good natured volunteers proved that Mayor Ralph Klein was right when he said that Calgarians are dignified, polite, sophisticated, yet down-to-earth.
To watch Elizabeth Manley's joy on the greatest night of her life, to see Brian Orser's outstanding performance, to marvel at Karen Percy, Tracy Wilson and Robert McCall moved all of us.

Laurie Graham and Gaetan Boucher gave new meaning to the expression "the glory of sport".
We marvelled at the performance of Finnish skier Matti Nykanen, Italian skier Alberto Tomba "La Bomba" and Dutch speed skater Yvonne van Gennip. We were delighted with the efforts of cross-country skier Pierre Harvey, luger
Marie-Claude Doyon and skier Jon Servold in the Nordic Combined.
Hundreds of millions of television viewers were delighted by the demonstration sports as well. I cannot let pass, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to note that your own daughter, Anna Fraser, competed so brilliantly in free-style skiing. If I may be so bold, her performance was even more spectacular and thrilling than your own in the Chair!
The warm bond which developed between the people of Okotoks, Alberta, and champion Soviet skaters epitomized what the games are all about.
From the hockey games to the closing ceremony-a magnificent spectacle-from the speedskating oval to the Chinooks, from heart-tugging performances to the raising of flags, the world was treated to 16 days of great athletics and great hospitality.
To our Canadian competitors, to Mayor Ralph Klein and the people of Calgary, we say congratulations and thank you on behalf of a grateful country.



Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, a recent story by Dave Haynes of the Calgary Herald inspired the Bard of Dromore just one more time.
With a Hidy and a Howdy Calgary greeted the world,
And the great media stories were quickly unfurled.
Skyscrapers, derricks, rodeos and operas,
Horses, Mercedes, stetsons, fedoras,
Pow wows and pipe organs, cowboys and Guccis,
Mountains and torches, prayers, hootchi-kootchis.
Warm Chinook winds barely melted CBC's cold,
While CTV gushed just like Calgary's black gold.
Higher, faster, stronger, richer, Lloyd Robertson stated,
The latter superlative made Ralph Klein elated,
All this and more the journalists ogled,
Olympic fever left the media boggled.
And the warm western spirit left some overwrought.
So that certain small details were off just a tot,
One case in point: Washington Post do you not know?
The proud host Calgary is not in Ontario.

March 1, 1988


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the admission in Winnipeg the other day by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) that Manitoba is being penalized with respect to funds available for projects under the Western Diversification Fund because the Manitoba Government has seen fit not to agree and co-operate with the federal Government.
I ask Members opposite, was Manitoba supposed to be happy in the early stages of this Government about the cancellation of the VIA Rail shop and its subsequent downsizing? Were we supposed to be happy about the cancellation of the manufacturing and research technology centre? Were we supposed to be happy about the repeated attempts, now succeeding, to erode Winnipeg's role as a transportation sector in western Canada? Were we supposed to be happy about that abominable decision to award the CF-18 contract to Montreal?
Were we supposed to just lie down and be quiet about all these things? Is the Manitoba Government to give up its principles with respect to free trade and other issues on which it disagrees with the federal Government? Is this a counsel on the part of the Member for St. Boniface and the Government to a lack of integrity in the political process? Are we all supposed to suck up to the federal Government in order for our regions to be treated well? It is totally unacceptable.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, like the haunting and lonely cry of the loon over a lake in northern Saskatchewan, the NDP chants "No privatization, no deregulation, no free trade". Now we have been told that the NDP is sending its Party financial contributors to Australia and New Zealand for a fun-filled tourist adventure suffused with Labour Party politics.
I spent the past week at an international grains meeting with the Ministers of Trade of Australia and New Zealand and their officials who actively promoted their tax reform package, their success at privatizing, their success at deregulating and, of course, the many benefits of the new Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.
Imagine my surprise at hearing this. We can see it now- Canadian NDP Members going to Australia and New Zealand, timid Canadian socialists wringing their hands and then being told by reform-minded Aussies and New Zealanders just how wrong the NDP really is. That is going to be some holiday!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, since April 1987, when the Unemployment Insurance Act deprived early retirees of their vested right to draw unemployment insurance benefits, protest groups started to form.
Mr. Speaker, early retirees are upset about a measure they consider to be unfair. After contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for many years, during which most of them never drew any benefits at all, they now stand to lose $15,000 in benefits because their pension fund is now considered to be a salary for the purposes of unemployment insurance.
Now that they have been deprived of their benefits, a number of early retirees are wondering about the billion-and-a-half-dollar surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They are critical of the explanation that the surplus was due to a drop in the unemployment rate. According to them, the surplus was probably due to the cuts in unemployment insurance entitlements for early retirees. They now want justice to be done.
The situation that arose as a result of the measure passed in April 1987 has made some people reluctant to take early retirement, although in many cases, it would mean giving young people a chance at their jobs.
In a system like ours, where the economy always comes down hard on young people, the Government should let early retirees keep their rights.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as part of the federal Government's new approach to regional development, a consultation paper outlining a development plan for Northwest Quebec was released yesterday in Amos by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard).
Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), the Minister urged local leaders and their communities to read the consultation paper containing the preliminary conclusions of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion with respect to economic opportunities in Northwest Quebec.
This consultation exercise allows to a large extent for regional aspirations and is an appeal for a concerted effort by the population to strengthen the economy of Northwest Quebec during the next five years. Mr. Speaker, as was said not long ago by the Minister of State (Minister of Transport) (Mrs. Vezina), the true architect of regional development is
March 1, 1988

the community itself: its miners, fishermen, farmers, business people and forestry workers who are being assisted by both levels of government through various programs within their respective jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, the button on my jacket today says: Je supporte les accreditives a 133 p. 100! (1 support flow-through shares 133 per cent!).


MULTICULTURALISM
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the failure of the federal cultural agencies to support ethnic cultural activity is a longstanding grievance in Canada's ethnocultural communities. This failure is the failure of the Canada Council, for example, to act on the multicultural policy statement of 1971.
In spite of the Prime Minister's declaration in 1971 that Canada had no official culture and that the Government of Canada would foster the various cultures, the Department of Communications remained preoccupied with the cultures of English-speaking and French-speaking Canada. Cultural activities in the other ethnocultural communities were left to the Multiculturalism Directorate of the Department of Secretary of State.
This practice of leaving the ethnocultural communities in ghettos of neglect must end. A Canadian Government committed to multiculturalism must ensure that the Canada Council and other agencies respect the policies of multiculturalism. These agencies need to be provided with the financial resources to foster a diversity of cultures.
Only by such action will we overcome the divisions of the past and realize the richness that ethnocultural diversity brings to Canada.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, a socialist supporter can go to Hawaii, New Zealand and Australia for free and spend $1,000 on trinkets and kangaroo chops while petting a koala bear if, that is, the selected entrant first correctly answers, unaided, a time limited arithmetical skill-testing question.
Note: Ordinary Canadians with ordinary intelligence need not apply. I just happen to know the question and want to warn those poor individuals who may apply. The question is: If the NDP were to govern, how long would it take to totally bankrupt Canada: (A) Ten years; (B) Five years; (C) Two years?
The answer is none of the above. It would only take the NDP less than one year to bankrupt ordinary Canadians.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday the Chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, Claire Wescott, spoke for a great many Canadians when he said:
Life is becoming more and more bizarre. A burglar breaks into your house
and gets a slap on the wrist but if a policeman enters your house without a
warrant he gets into serious trouble.
Canadians live in a society that locks up juries and lets the accused out on
bail.
We can stop prayer in schools but we cannot stop the use of pot.
The quest for individual rights is a noble cause as long as it results in improving our society and providing an opportunity for a healthier, happier and more meaningful life for all of us.
I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to take note.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, after a twenty-seven-month long struggle by representatives of Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel, Vickers, by all the people of Montreal's east end, and by municipal, federal and provincial elected representatives, at the federal level only the Liberal team managed to obtain $90 million from the City of Montreal to revitalize the economy in Montreal's east end. Three cheers for that contribution and three cheers for the $500 million contributed by the Quebec Government! The money will be used mainly to modernize industries and help workers retrain for new jobs. Unfortunately, the federal Government contributed only a meager $37 million, a clear demonstration of the Conservative Government's complete lack of understanding for early retirement needs in Montreal's east end.

March 1, 1988
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, just the same we won the battle, thanks to the co-operation of the people of Montreal's east end, and now, thanks to the tenacity of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the east end can start to breath easier.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. 1 want to point out how frequently the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have said that Canada would break diplomatic relations with South Africa and would impose total economic sanctions against South Africa unless there was meaningful progress in the dismantling of apartheid.
The Prime Minister and his Minister committed Canada to a full severing of relations with South Africa on September 13, 1985; October 23, 1985; June 6, 1986; September 9, 1987, and yesterday, February 29, 1988. Indeed, for two and one-half years Canadians have been told by the Government that there would be a total severing of relationships with South Africa and for two and one-half years the situation, instead of getting better, has gotten worse.
When is the Government going to carry out its commitments made by the Prime Minister of this country, both in the United Nations and in Parliament, to sever ties with South Africa now that no progress has been made in the dismantling of apartheid?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, I think, put the position very clearly yesterday when he said how much Canada deplored the deterioration of the already unacceptable situation in South Africa. I think all Canadians share the profound concern over the recent events in South Africa and we certainly take them very seriously. The situation is clearly going from bad to worse in this regard.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs hopes to return to the House as early as tomorrow and he will be reporting on his review of Canada's policy on South Africa on his early return to the House.


APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for two and a half years the Government has said it is
not the right time to apply sanctions against South Africa. Once more, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how far the situation in South Africa will have to deteriorate for it to be the right time. How many more examples of this kind of action by the Government of South Africa do we need for the Government to react and impose full economic or diplomatic sanctions on South Africa?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister very clearly said yesterday, and I quote from Hansard at page 13216:
We have retained clearly as an option the severance of all relationships with the Government of South Africa.
He also explained that once we sever relations we cease to be a player, and the view of the Government of Canada has been that we can work more effectively, maintaining diplomatic relations, to help people fight apartheid.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that the recent actions we have seen will cause all western Governments to review our policies and to examine again what would be the most effective way by which we can fight apartheid. As I have already said, and as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will report to the House on Canada's review of its policies when he returns, which could be as early as tomorrow.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister that that is not the commitment the Prime Minister of Canada made in his speech to the United Nations where he said that Canada would break diplomatic relations, would impose total economic sanctions, if the situation did not improve in South Africa. The situation has not improved, and that was two and one-half years ago.
The simple fact is that all the good intentions in the world are not working. The simple fact is that we have yet to hear why Canada should not impose full sanctions against South Africa.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. If now is not the time to act, when will that time arrive?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is a very specific answer. As I have said, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs returns, he will report to the House.
March 1, 1988


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the President and Vice-President of CN who, by the way, met with the Minister of Transport in Ottawa yesterday, have sent a letter to their headquarters in Moncton, in the Atlantic region, which states that "-we should advance every downsizing project to its earliest possible date-" because of "-the strong possibility of a late spring-early summer federal election ... and in areas of doubt as to timing, we should proceed with the approval process-" for lay offs "-and then delay implementation if necessary".
I ask the Minister of Transport, why is the Government pushing with such heartless haste to fire and retire CN employees? Does he really believe that the people of Canada will forget about all of this before the next election is called? Why wait for spring, fire them now!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we can tell by the news that the Hon. Member is back in circulation again.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what document the Hon. Member was speaking from. It certainly was not from the President of CN. There was a message dated January 11, 1988, that was sent by a senior vice-president of operations, Mr. Fletcher. Perhaps that is what he is referring to. The hon. gentleman is a month and three-quarters behind, as he usually is. This was already leaked to the press one month and three weeks ago, so it is old news that he is bringing up and rehashing.
The hon. gentleman might be pleased to know that Mr. Fletcher is retiring in July. I do not know whether that is part of the downsizing operation. By a look at this memo, it looks to me like something that copied a precedent from the old Liberal Party files of 1980-84.


NEWFOUNDLAND-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
George Baker: The discussions that the Minister had yesterday with the President of Canadian National-who, by the way, is one of the people who qualifies for the so-called performance bonus of tens of thousands of dollars that is paid by the Government up until March 31, if there are enough lay offs-did not only concern lay offs, but in the case of Newfoundland a total wipe out.
I ask the Minister of Transport, why is the Government intent on making Newfoundland the only province of Canada without a railway? Does he really believe that the people of Newfoundland will forget about the hundreds of jobs that will be lost when the railway is closed by the Government, and that they believe his crazy statements about locating nuclear powered submarines in St. John's harbour and creating hundreds of jobs? We are Newfs, not nukes.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the hon. gentleman appears to be against increased defence expenditures in Newfoundland. The Government is spending $93 million to expand the base at Goose Bay. We are doing all we can to establish a NATO tactical low-level flying base at Goose Bay. We are spending tens of millions of dollars on the North Warning System.
If I can do it, we will certainly be stationing nuclear propelled submarines in St. John's. That will mean the creation of at least 1,200 jobs.
It is interesting to see that the hon. gentleman's NDP tendencies-No Defence Programs-is what he advocates.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who answers for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in the House.
The Minister will recall that in a last desperate act, last summer the Prime Minister in the context of a by-election taking place in St. John's East, which the Government lost, promised to set up a development agency in Atlantic Canada that would be administered by people in Atlantic Canada, with decisions made on the spot, with ample funding. So far not a cent has been spent.
Considering that the four Premiers from Atlantic Canada have now criticized the organization of this agency and have suggested that, instead of decisions being made in the region where they are supposed to be made, they are being made in Ottawa by one Dalton Camp, would the Minister of Transport comment on this in the House and explain the Government's abject failure to act in the interest of Atlantic Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the hon. gentleman is full of spurious indignation.
What did the Premiers actually say, not the four Atlantic Premiers but the three Maritime Premiers? They said that they wanted to talk with the Prime Minister about how Ottawa is going to operate the new ACOA.
It so happens that Senator Murray, the Leader of the Government in the other House, and I, for example when he met with Premier Peckford, and other Ministers when he met with the other three Atlantic Ministers, have gone over in detail with these hon. Premiers how it is going to operate.
They have said that they want to harmonize its operations with their own to avoid duplication. They only want to avoid

March 1, 1988
Oral Questions
having ACOA programs overlap provincial programs, so that there will only be one delivery system.
They have not been critical of this agency. There will be no duplication. They already know that there is going to be no duplication. Wherever two programs might be duplicated, we will ensure that there is not any duplication.
There may be an argument about who delivers the programs. We want to deliver some of the programs, because we want the Government of Canada to get full credit for some of the programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That might be at the nub of the problem, because certain Atlantic Premiers want the credit so that they-


An Hon. Member:: Same old gang.


John Carnell Crosbie: You see what is at issue here.


John Edward Broadbent: While the Government is making up its mind about getting credit, unemployment in Atlantic Canada remains at an unacceptably high level. That is a reality.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just said that the Atlantic Premiers have not complained. 1 correct him by saying that it is the Premier of Nova Scotia who has raised Mr. Dalton Camp's name and has suggested that he is calling the shots for political priority reasons instead of development reasons.
Since the Prime Minister made what was supposed to be a solemn promise in the context of a by-election in Newfoundland almost a year ago, and since not a cent has yet been spent to create the jobs that he promised, when, at last, will the Government act to deliver on what it promised?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is notoriously careless with the truth and he continues in that tradition.
In the Estimates which are before the House today, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is requesting $316 million of which $200 million is absolutely new spending to carry on new programs. The rules in connection with the programs were announced just last week.
In addition, whereas $1,070 million was spent on DRIE, WDO and ACOA type programs in 1984-85, $1,966 million is being spent in the year 1988-89, a $896 million increase.
The hon. gentleman should not keep repeating the calumnies and nonsense which his provincial leader in Newfoundland keeps repeating. Repetition will not alter the truth.


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding what the Minister just said, I am sure if he will calm down he will acknowledge that
not a cent has been spent out of the agency which was set up to be administered by local people in Atlantic Canada. That is the force of criticism of the Atlantic Premiers, and that is what we on this side of the House are agreeing with, whether or not the Minister likes it.


PREMIERS' REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would he now tell us when they plan to spend money from this agency which has been set up? Will he now meet the request of the four Atlantic Premiers, including Premier Peckford, who want to meet with the Prime Minister?
Will he commit the Prime Minister, in his absence, to having a meeting with these Premiers so that something, at long last, can be done about unemployment in the Minister's part of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government has already done something about unemployment in that region of Canada and in every region of Canada.
For example, in my own province, where the unemployment rate was 23.8 per cent under the Liberals when they were vaingloriously kicked out of office in 1984, it was down in January to 17.4 per cent. There is improvement in the unemployment rate in every nook and cranny of Canada. The hon. gentleman should remember that. And, Mr. Speaker, he should also remember this. The report says:
The Premiers were careful not to express dissatisfaction with the new federal agency, but said they only want to avoid having ACOA programs overlap provincial programs so there will be only one delivery system.
It is only the NDP that is niggling and jealous about this program which will do so much for Atlantic Canada.


RAILWAYS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
I have here a document from the Office of the VicePresident of Operations of Canadian National, which recommends transferring the switching yard control centre from Montreal to Toronto, which would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs at the Montreal office.
When the Minister met with the President of CN, did the President mention this recommendation? If so, did the

March 1, 1988

Minister of Transport say no to this recommendation, to keep the jobs in Montreal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have not been consulted by CN with reference to any move or proposal that will cause the loss of hundreds of jobs in Montreal.
As a matter of fact, 1 have taken steps with VIA Rail to ensure that it would have funding for the continuation of hundreds of jobs at the Point St. Charles workshop in Montreal. I do not know what the hon. gentleman is referring to. He would certainly have to be more specific.
By the way, 20 per cent of the whole CN workforce is located in Montreal, that is, 9,639 persons are in one city, the city of Montreal. Is the Hon. Member going to complain about that?


REQUEST FOR MINISTER TO INTERVENE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister that we are talking about the control centre, not the CN workshops. The recommendations that were made and the decisions that are being or have already been made will have the effect of transferring all operations to the Toronto office.
This will mean the loss of 105 jobs in Montreal, but the Minister should also realize that the language of work in Quebec is French, and that a transfer to Toronto will mean a complete change of policy. This is reminiscent of the gens de I'air affair, but in this case, we are talking about les gens a terre.
I therefore want to ask the Minister whether he intends to intervene to ensure that the transfer does not take place, that Montreal will keep its control centre, and that operations in Quebec will be directed from Montreal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder where the hon. gentleman was and did he intervene between 1980 and 1984 when in the neighbourhood of 7,000 odd jobs disappeared in the CN organization. No, we did not hear one syllabub from the hon. gentleman opposite during those four years.
With respect to the point which the Hon. Member brings forward, I have not been consulted or asked to consent to any such move. If any such proposal comes forward, the hon. gentleman can be sure that I will see it is scrutinized very carefully and I will keep in mind his representation.
We have a board of directors and management to run Canadian National. They have to deal with the fact that life is changed and that CN's share of the market, the rail share of the market, has slipped from 60 per cent to 27 per cent since 1950.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


APARTHEID
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responding for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If I understood the Minister correctly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement in the House tomorrow regarding Canadian Government policy toward South Africa. If that is true, could the Minister confirm it.
Second, given the slap in the face to the Minister and to his colleagues in Lusaka recently, that the South African Government has administered with its recent policies, will the Minister be saying what Canada is prepared to do alone now that these recent events have happened? Will the Minister be taking the step of imposing mandatory and comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa? The time has come for that, at least.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I need some advice from you. 1 am not sure whether or not the Hon. Member has asked me whether the statements 1 have made in the House today are true. If that is the case, I would ask you to redirect him on his question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some question as to whether or not the question was appropriate. The Hon. Minister, as any other Member, can raise it immediately after Question Period. In the meantime I would ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill to place his supplementary.


POSSIBLE STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will resist commenting on the Minister's lack of comprehension of what I asked her. I will ask her a subsequent question.
When he speaks to the House tomorrow the Minister will be suggesting a Canadian proposal at the United Nations that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be called to address the question of South Africa. Is that something the Government is considering? I hope that question is not too complicated for the Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that no question asked by the NDP on any aspect of foreign policy is too difficult for this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 1, 1988
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: As I said earlier in this House in response to other questions, and as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in this House, Canada is reviewing its policy on South Africa. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will report to the House on his return to it, which could be as early as tomorrow. 1 suggest the Hon. Member could wait until that time to put his questions.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question addresses itself to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Government has promised to negotiate an energy accord with the Northwest Territories similar to the Atlantic and Western Accords. What progress has been made on this? When can we expect this accord to be finalized?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The idea of an accord is consistent with government policy. The discussions will continue, and I am sure the interest which the Hon. Member has expressed is interest that is duplicated in the North.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has consulted with the Dene, with the Inuvialiut, the TFN. They are at present awaiting further discussions. I cannot inform the Hon. Member as to a time, but I believe it is an appropriate vehicle to transfer responsibility to those Governments north of sixty.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. On October 2, 1985, his predecessor stated in the House:
Mr. Speaker, there is a long and honoured tradition in Canada that political
activity and the military do not mix, and they ought not to.
The Minister will know that the Prime Minister in a petty partisan speech yesterday flagrantly breached that time honoured tradition of the House. What does the Minister intend to do about this breach?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of criticizing the speech, and it is a free speech in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: It was not in this country.


An Hon. Member:: Germany is in Europe.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has the floor.


QUEEN'S ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not a dictator in a banana republic, and Canadians do not want him to use politics, in violation of the Queen's Regulations.

It is a clear violation of Section 19, subsection 44 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders. A conviction under this section is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term of up to one year.
I would like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence if he expects the Prime Minister to maintain any shred of integrity by in fact repudiating this direct political partisan activity on a Canadian Armed Forces Base, something which puts the Canadian Armed Forces in the untenable position of mixing politics with the defence of Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member for Hamilton East does not know the difference between a person who happens to be employed as a politician in Canada and a person who happens to be employed as a member of the military personnel. The military has a long tradition in Canada of not being involved in political responses, but politicians like the Prime Minister certainly have every right, as I think the Hon. Member would want to have the right if she were acting as a political person.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. When the Government got into the trade deal with the Americans, one of the items included was the payment under the Western Grain Transportation Act for the movement of certain grains to the West Coast. This of course has now led American producers to believe that this assistance and the Crow benefit itself are a commodity subsidy.
Does the Minister not now agree that the inclusion of this program in the trade deal was a serious mistake? Now that the
March 1, 1988

door has been opened a crack, how will the Government prevent U.S. producers and Congressional representatives from being able to open it all the way, or are we going to give in once again?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to figure which side of the question the Hon. Member is on. Surely he is not objecting to those parts of the free trade agreement dealing with the movement of wheat. It is very much in western Canadian interests.
I am surprised to think that the Hon. Member places as much credibility as he seems to on the arguments of the Americans who are criticizing the free trade agreement. Surely if the Americans are criticizing the free trade agreement it is because they feel there is a perceived benefit to Canada. I would think we would agree with that.


MANAGEMENT OF GRAIN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Richard Lyng and trade representative Clayton Yeutter last week confirmed their pledges to tackle the elimination of the transportation assistance for grain movement through Thunder Bay in future negotiations on the trade deal? Will the Minister state categorically now that Canada will in no way give up its right to manage its own grain transportation system in a way that benefits Canadian industry, ports, and farmers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly reassure the Hon. Member on that point. The only person who is suggesting that Canada would give up such authority is the Hon. Member opposite. It certainly never originated on this side of the House.
I can also point out that Mr. Yeutter was the American cabinet Minister who signed the free trade agreement. The Agriculture Minister, Mr. Lyng, was present during parts of the negotiation of the agreement and-


John Edward Broadbent: Her knowledge is so extensive.


Pat Carney: My knowledge of the free trade agreement is considerably larger than your knowledge of the free trade agreement, and the suggestion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: It is hard to maintain my Irish temper, Mr. Speaker, under these kinds of conditions. May I simply say that I can give the Hon. Member the assurances that he seeks. I question the credibility of his information.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Last week the Minister confirmed that CN would substantially reduce administrative and management personnel in western Canada, contrary to the promise made by the Deputy Prime Minister that employment would in fact be enhanced. We now have a memo sent from the senior Vice President of Operations to Mr. Campbell, the Vice President of the Prairie Region, recommending further downsizing and further lay-offs in order to meet an arbitrary political timetable.
Has this order of Mr. Fletcher been rescinded or is CN in fact going ahead with further lay-offs in the Pacific, western and prairie regions of the CNR, contrary to the Government's promises? If it is, it will have devastating effects upon western Canadian communities. The Government should at least make those plans public so we have an opportunity to discuss them, examine them and see what the impact on these communities will be. Can the Minister tell us if this was rescinded or not, or if he will make those downsizing plans public?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see what three or four people can attempt to make of one silly memorandum sent out by one-


Some Hon. Members:: Silly?


John Carnell Crosbie: -by one person in the management of Canadian National. The memorandum was sent out on January 11 and it was leaked on January 10 or as soon as it went out. This, as I calculate it, is now March 1. It has taken the hon. gentleman a month and three weeks to realize the immense possibilities it gives to those with little imagination to rise in the House and try to make something of it. There is nothing that can be made of it. It is just one person's errant imagination concerned with downsizing.
The position is that there is no plan to lay off any members of the workforce in the West, the East or the centre, except in the course of normal attrition. As I said to the House last week, CN expects to reduce its administrative and management ranks by some 1,020 positions system-wide by mid-1988 by using a special separation early retirement package and by not filling vacant jobs. That is what happened.
The same process happened last year, because the administrative and management ranks cannot be allowed to stay out of line with the ranks of the ordinary working members of CN. Unfortunately, they have to be slimmed down as well and they have to do this to keep up with the competition and to be productive and effective and able to compete. I am against it and I fight against it at every opportunity and I stop everything I can stop, Mr. Speaker.

March 1, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could save some of his answer for the supplementary.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE RAILWAY'S PLANS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that if there is any silliness in the middle management of CN, it is simply reflecting the kind of leadership they get from the political bosses at the top.
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question. Is he prepared, without further silliness, to table CN plans dealing with the downsizing, the attrition and the reduction in the CN workforce and what impact that will have upon western Canadian communities? It is a simple request. Will the Minister table those reports and ensure that they will be examined before the committee because of the major repercussions they will have on western Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the question comes from a former Minister of Transport who must know that in its annual plan filed every year CN outlines what its plans are for the coming year and for the next five. If the Hon. Member wants to see about the problem of downsizing, he can look at any of those plans.
The West originates 59 per cent of CN traffic by weight and 62 per cent of CN revenues. The West will continue to have a major share of the workforce. For example, 9,773 CN people work in Edmonton and Winnipeg alone. There is no plan to downsize in any special way the workforce in the West. The hon. gentleman-


Mr. Rodriguez:: Downsize the answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: To quote an old Buddhist saying that I came across, "It is easier to chain an elephant with lotus leaves than to teach a crazy person".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is amazing what is in the briefing notes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE-ADMINISTRATION OF RESEARCH FUNDS
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, an estimated 300,000 Canadians are victims of Alzheimer's Disease, a 20th century disease. This disease which strikes as early as age 40 has no cure. The Minister of State for Seniors, the first in Canada, knows this well through his consultations with over 1,500 seniors and seniors' groups. I must congratulate the Government for providing $4 million for research into this disease.
Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform Canadians how the research fund will be administered? Specifically, what will be the eligibility criteria and when will it get under way?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has taken an interest in this area along with my colleague, the Minister of State for Seniors.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are laughing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I take it the Hon. Member for Hamilton East does not like to hear about success.


Miss MacDonald:: Or anything else.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has the floor and is answering a question which I know all Hon. Members will appreciate is a serious one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Minister of State for Seniors has had very extensive consultations, the result of which was the announcement in Saskatoon of additional funds for research into Alzheimer's and osteoporosis beyond what is being done by the Medical Research Council. The money is available April 1, 1988, and the program will be conducted through the NHRDP of the department of Health and Welfare. People can apply through the department with the kind of peer review that we have had before in the NHRDP in order to get the best research.
As my colleague, the Minister, pointed out, this program was requested by the Alzheimer Society. It has been received very well and we look forward not only to additional research but the fact that Canada will be involved in some of the leading research in this area. That is why I am pleased that the Member asked me about the program which the Hon. Minister of State for Seniors brought forward in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues' applause reflects relief rather than adulation.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS-LAWSUIT LAUNCHED BY CERTAIN COMPANIES
John Edmund Parry: softwood lumber export dispute and introduction of the softwood lumber export tax.
Now that yet another chicken has come home to roost, this time in the form of a lawsuit against the Government by some companies which were taxed and which cite the case of other companies that were not, will she explain why the Government permitted that fundamentally inequitable situation to arise?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Hon. Member that the export tax has been removed in five provinces, as anticipated and planned, enabling those provinces to carry out management of their own forestry resources. Negotiations with other provinces are continuing.
May I also point out that the IWA, the union involved, said last year was a record year in the forest industry. There was not one job lost, not one iota, or one tittle, to quote my colleague from St. John's West, of negative impact on the industry because of the tax.
As the Hon. Member well knows, the case he brings before the House is before the courts and it is not appropriate for me to comment.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister's answer will be noted as an evasion by all those affected by this tax.


TAXATION OF COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since some companies paid this tax and other companies in identical situations did not, what compensation will she offer to the companies that were unfairly taxed?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the fact that this matter is before the courts. Therefore, if he has any basic knowledge of how procedures work in this House, he will know it is not appropriate for me to comment on it.
His Party is the same Party that maintained all sorts of evil things would flow from the export tax. Again I take delight in having the opportunity to quote from the IWA report which says the massive job losses which many Canadian observers believed would result from imposition of the export tax simply have not occurred. The report goes on to point out that 600 sawmill jobs were added in British Columbia alone during that period. This was a very realistic and helpful way to deal with a distressing situation and brought benefit, not harm, to the industry.
Oral Questions FINANCE


MINING DEPLETION ALLOWANCE-REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He knows that hundreds of representatives of mining communities across the country are meeting here in Ottawa today to protest the Government's plan to remove the mining depletion allowance. Will the Minister, even at this late date, reconsider his decision in view of the thousands of jobs that will be lost in exploration and development, and reinstate this program which provided thousands of jobs and kept hundreds of communities operating over many years?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member did not want to leave the impression that flow-through shares have been removed from the tax Bill. He said reinstate the program.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I said mining depletion allowance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I understand he does not want to leave that impression and that flow-through shares are still in place. There have been some changes in the provisions. The changes we announced last June were improved upon in the changes announced in December, 1987.
I am sure the Hon. Member is also very much aware of the fact that equity financing in Canada prior to October 19, the stock market crash, amounted to some $7 billion. Since that time there has been less than $500 million worth of equity financing and that had an impact on some companies. Whether they are flow-through share financing or other forms, they have all been affected, and that is one of the major causes.
However, 1 have indicated that 1 am prepared to meet with the companies, and officials have been meeting with them over the past few days, and will do so into the future.


EFFECTING OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm a report in Mining Week quoting Mr. Karl Glackmeyer, Director of the Prospectors and Developers Association, who indicates that the Government's position is that incentives have to be eliminated in accordance with the recent Canada-U.S. free trade agreement?
Could the Minister comment on that press report and will he take into account in reinstating this program that if it is wiped out now, under the terms of the free trade agreement it could not be reinstated?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question in a probably more colourful way than I will with this Hon. Member. I responded to some totally unfounded comments made by the Leader of the NDP, who

March 1, 1988
Borrowing Authority
made such an enormous flip-flop on this issue. In the past the NDP were against flow-through shares and now, for straight political partisan reasons, they are doing a flip-flop.


Mr. Speaker:: We are getting into a highly partisan statement. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board concerning the lack of progress in the collective bargaining between Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
The Alliance proposed streamlining the procedure, reducing the number of bargaining units from 31 to 7, which it says would save a great deal of money. Why is Treasury Board refusing to deal with this?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows there was a two-tier bargaining system set up by my predecessor. The unions have now chosen to withdraw from that and want to reduce the number of bargaining units from 31 to 7. We have refrained from doing that. We said we would go to 16.
The fact of the matter is that there is negotiation and binding conciliation in two stages and the unions have requested some change in that. We had hoped we could continue to work along the very effective approach established by my predecessor. Unfortunately the unions have chosen not to follow that. We hope they will come around to agreeing with the position they originally agreed to so that we can get on with the collective bargaining process in the manner in which it was carried on so effectively by my predecessor.


NUMBER OF BARGAINING UNITS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Post Office, the Canada Labour Relations Board reduced the number of bargaining units from 28 to 4. In this situation the unions voluntarily offered to reduce the number and the Government is opposed to it because the unions do not want to be bound by a no-strike rule. The Minister knows that the unions have hardly ever used the right to strike. Why does the Minister not accept this proposition which the union says will save the Government $1.5 million?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, very simply put, the union wants the
right to strike right across the board and the employer has to refrain from this common front type of bargaining approach because it would put the employer at a great disadvantage under that particular scenario.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is responding today for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In October, 1986, the inshore and offshore sectors of the scallop fishery in the Bay of Fundy area came up with a management plan for this very important resource. For instance, all sides agreed that the fishing zone for New Brunswick fishermen would be extended to the middle of the Bay of Fundy.
Now we learn that the Minister has issued licenses which allow some of these same fishermen to fish over the entire Bay. Why has the Minister taken this decision which violates the 1986 scallop agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as all Members know, life is never as simple as we would like it to be. The situation is that there were three individuals who said they had certain historical rights with regard to fishing for scallop stocks in the Bay of Fundy area. They appealed to the Atlantic Fisheries License Appeal Board. The Atlantic Fisheries License Appeal Board heard their cases, two in 1986, and one last year, and recommended that they should receive a full Bay of Fundy scallop license.
The Minister gave this careful consideration. After all, this is a ruling of the appeal board and these individual fishermen could suffer if they did not get the licenses. The Minister decided that individual justice should be done and that they should get the licenses.
In one case there was a long-standing involvement in the scallop fishery and in the other cases there was historical connection with the scallop fishery. That is the explanation. These three cases were heard and that was the recommendation of the appeal board.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-109, an Act to provide for borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

March 1, 1988
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority.

The Bells will ring for not more than fifteen minutes.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Members
Atlewcll
Bernier
Bertrand
Blackburn
(Jonquicrc)
Blais
Blcnkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bradley
Brightwcll
Brisco
Browcs
Cadicux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Collins Comcau Cooper Cossitt Crofton Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Darling dc Cotrct Della Nocc Duguay Ellis Epp
(Provcnchcr)
Fcrland
Fontaine
Forrcstall
Fralcigh
Fretz
Fricscn
Gagnon
Gass
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Grise
Gustafson
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
James
Jardinc
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Kcmpling
King
Ladouceur Landry La Salle Lewis Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDcrmid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Mitges
Moore
Nickerson
Oberle
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
Rcimer
Ricard
St. Germain
Schcllenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Stevens Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van Dc Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Weiner Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Wincgard-115




William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join with other colleagues from both sides of the House in speaking on the Bill that has been put forward. Bill C-113 is designed to promote the development and the diversification of the economy of western Canada, and to establish a full department of western economic diversification.
The Government came to office committed to making regional economic development work. This Bill demonstrates the commitment to the regional development in the West, and it demonstrates the Government's approach that is unique for designing developmental policies and for developing programs which are tailored to the needs of each region.
In designing this legislation, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to my Cabinet colleagues, particularly those from western Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and individuals from the western region of Canada, who put forward their views and concerns and who assisted in designing this program.

March 1, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
The Government sees Canada as a land of mutually supporting regions in which the prosperity flows from the broad economic base throughout the country.


Mr. Benjamin:: From downtown Toronto.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin) will take part in this debate, and 1 know that he will support the legislation designed to bring benefit to his constituents as well as mine.
There have been several organizational experiments over the past 60 years to promote regional and economic development in Canada. I would suggest that there has been little measurable progress.
One thing that has been clear from those experiments is that Ottawa-based centralized approaches fail to capture the regional differences that we all recognize in Canada. They failed to provide federal policies which are tailored to the individual needs of the men and women in each region of Canada. The West's development problems are not the same as those of Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, or Quebec.
When this Government came to office we came with ideas of how to make regional development work. We made a commitment to ensure that the regions of Canada would have a strong voice in influencing economic development.
The first half of this mandate was designed to create the right environment, the economic growth, and the investment that was needed. It was also designed to correct some sectorial inadequacies that were apparent, such as those in energy, agriculture, taxation, trade, and in other sectors. The groundwork has been done and the base has been established. Regional development can only take place when the climate for national economic development is right.
Once the climate was created, new tools for regional economic development were put in place. In June the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; in July the Northern Ontario Development Fund was announced; and on August 4, 1987 the Prime Minister announced the new western diversification initiative. These are regional initiatives, and they are major undertakings to correct regional imbalances and inadequacies.
In the past under DREE, DRIE, and all the others, of which there have been several, regional economic development policy and regional economic program delivery were never successfully married.
The legislation before the House at this time brings the policy development and the program delivery together. The policy role, which would be combined with the instruments of the Western Economic Development Fund, will allow us to have the tools to do the job.
A major component of the initiative is the department with headquarters in Edmonton and offices in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Vancouver. It is to promote diversification from regional ideas. It is not an Ottawa-imposed approach to the economic development of the West. It is close to the people whom it is designed to serve. It is not located in Ottawa, but in the West. It will also bring a western voice to the formation of national policy. All Ministers, regardless of their ministry responsibilities, always speak on behalf of their regions and will continue to do that. What we are doing now is putting in statute and legislating a department which will speak and attempt to influence national policies in order that those national policies can better serve people in western Canada.
When we look at the areas that are important, to mention some, agriculture, forestry, transport, science and technology, it is important to draw those agencies and departments together and to examine the programs and the policies in relation to the economic development potential in western Canada.
I believe there is an opportunity to influence Government without expenditures. As an example, in the August Budget we were able to work as a pathfinder where kaolin was classified as a mineral. That is the first change in the schedule since potash was recognized as a mineral some 20 years ago. It seems strange to me, since it was not a vegetable and it was mined out of the ground, that it was not classified as a mineral. It had to be classified as a mineral in order that the tax regime available to mining could be put in place. That was recognized by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and announced in the Budget of February 10.
I do not think it is misstating a fact, and my colleague from Saskatchewan will recognize it, but it is almost twice as far from Ottawa to Regina than it is from Regina to Ottawa. That is a fact of life that we have recognized for a long period of time.
The department will work as a pathfinder for those men and women in western Canada who have ideas and proposals, who want to do business with the Government of Canada, and who want to assist us in strengthening the economy in the West. It will serve as a voice in western Canada to promote cooperative ventures with the provinces, business, labour, and other public and private organizations. The department will also have the following responsibilities. It will formulate plans and integrate federal strategies to support the economic diversification of the western economy. It will oversee or implement such plans and strategies, if they are not implemented by other Ministries. It will promote the growth of small and medium-sized businesses. It will attempt to improve the business environment in western Canada. It will support economic and policy research. Finally, it will engage in and conclude co-operative arrangements with the provinces.
March 1, 1988

Fundamentally this legislation outlines how the federal Government can better serve western Canadians. It is a different approach from that of any other Government. It integrates in legislation a regional voice in government processes, policy-making, and program delivery.
Another key element of the legislation is the financial assistance which can be made available through the department for the development and diversification of the western economy. This means that the federal Government can become actively involved in the implementation of key diversification projects and programs.
The department will offer assistance to enterprises which have prospects of furthering the diversification or strengthening and expanding the economy of the West.
This assistance will be incremental. It will be "top up" or "last in" support for key business and economic projects in the West. The "topping up" or "last in" support is not to take away from assistance provided by other government Departments. We must also consider the client's own contribution to a project. Equity is important, whether it comes in the form of individual funding or from financial institutions. These projects will not be all government support; some initiative and some equity must be put forward. If we can take advantage of strategic development opportunities in the West, proposals that have the greatest potential for broadening and expanding the economic base of the West, we will do so.
This is not an entitlement program. If we take a look at previous experiences, entitlement was part of it. This program is not entitlement; it is managed with flexibility and creativity. We will see what projects must be and should be supported.
To enhance the flexibility we have a number of principles, not guidelines or automatic kick-outs. We believe that as time goes on we will gain experience and more knowledge about the way to handle the co-ordinating and funding functions of the department.
Basically one principle is aimed at business and economic projects which can expand or diversify the economy in western Canada, projects which lead to new products, new markets, new technologies, import substitution, and new long-term jobs. As 1 mentioned, it will be used to top up the last dollar in. Therefore, there must be a comprehensive search of other government programs and other government Departments which could and should assist in a major way to strengthen the economy in the West.
There will be a range of types and levels of assistance. For example, there will be loan guarantees, credit and loan insurance, contributions, repayable contributions, and grants. All economic sectors will be eligible, including the service sector which is the fastest growing sector in the Canadian economy, particularly in western Canada. It will also include the natural resource sector, which is very important in western Canada, wherein clearly there is an opportunity to develop new
Western Economic Diversification Act
products and new lines. Projects such as research and development and marketing will be encouraged, projects which help build a business support structure. These projects will enhance the competitive capacity, so that a large number of western Canadians can take advantage of the business support structure which will be put in place. There will also be support for individual business proposals, after they have been accepted, assessed, and viewed in terms of their ability to expand the economy in western Canada.
There has been criticism of tardiness and over-long reviews in projects. Because we are working on a principle rather than a guideline, and because we do not have a slide-rule or an automatic percentage, it takes a little longer to review or assess each proposal. Because of the flexibility that has been built into it, there had to be some reorganization of Government. I think that was necessary and desirable in the establishment of the new department. The federal economic development coordinators and their offices in the western provinces were transferred from the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion to form the core of the new department.
The approach for which we are looking is to develop strategic partnerships to avoid duplication. We hope to be able to optimize the process of expansion of the economy in western Canada. If something needs an extra push or more drive, if it is something we want to force- feed, there will be dollars available to top up that initiative.
We have recognized-and it was recognized by the Prime Minister western Canada needed an advocate in central Government. This legislation establishes a department of western diversification. It is already having an impact. The challenges and policies which are designed as national policies will have to take into account the country's regional dimension.
I will be interested in some of the comments of members of the federal Liberal Opposition with respect to the attention they paid to the West during all their years in office.


Lloyd Axworthy: Stick around and you will hear about them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I will stick around. I remember a $4 billion fund which vanished, totally disappeared.
The department takes over a number of existing programs in other areas and will serve as a pathfinder for business. It will assist business in doing government work and in having access to Government. What we need is the strategic capability to seize the opportunities put forward by western Canadians. We will be able to give action and life to the visions of Canadian men and women. Basically, the new department will have the interests of small business and medium sized business as its main responsibility.
We cannot achieve this objective alone, but I believe that we have the tools to achieve it. We will have the ability to fund it, and we will have the assistance of the other Ministries. Certainly there are people in western Canada with the desire and the tenacity to make it work.

March 1, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Regionally based approaches are different. This is something that is not understood by people in other Parties. It establishes relationships within line Departments. It also establishes relationships with the central agencies in the federal Government. It will have the co-ordinating role of a central agency and, in the management of the fund, it will have the operational role of a line Department. If we are to influence the national policies of the Government, we must ensure that it is properly linked with other federal Departments.
There will be an informal group of Ministers to deal with western economic concerns and a more formal Deputy Ministers' meeting, chaired by the Deputy Minister of Western Economic Diversification.
There has been a great deal of interest in the program in western Canada. Western Canadians are eager to participate. By mid-February we had received over 40,000 inquiries, had held some 3,000 meetings with individuals, and received in some form 2,355 proposals. We have processed some 262 proposals.
Some of the systems that have been made available to business in general, which will benefit not just individuals but have a systemic approach, is our participation in a $25.5 million program by contributing $5 million to the potash institute of Canada to diversify market opportunities in Asia and to strengthen leading-edge research and education facilities of the Saskatoon-based institutions. As a form of partnership, the provincial Government in this project has provided $6.8 million and the industry $13.8 million, for a total of over $25.5 million.
Toward the establishment of an $18 million world class cold climate engineering research facility in Edmonton, the centre for frontier engineering research, $7.5 million was contributed. That, again, was a partnership between the provincial Government of Alberta, with its contribution of $6.8 million and the balance being contributed by industry.
In British Columbia, $9.45 million of a $21 million project went toward the establishment of a marketing program for the B.C. shake and shingle industry. The industry is contributing $11.5 million in that joint initiative.
There have been other projects, some smaller and some larger. An example of a small initiative in Moose Jaw is the Huff and Puff Stitchery. It is receiving a grant to expand the capacity of its business. The western diversification office is assisting a company to design and manufacture motor control panels for the use in electrical installations. Another company will be using western diversification money to manufacture donkey heads or pump jacks used in the oil fields of the West.
There will be more, Madam Speaker. Again, I want to emphasize that in reviewing each proposal and treating each proposal as in individual initiative it does require a little more
effort and time, but I believe it is very beneficial to those interested in expanding the economy of western Canada. We will not have tier systems. The West will be treated as one region. The tier system was not beneficial to western Canada in the past and it will not be beneficial at this time.
In the past seven months we have been working and designing a new department and a new approach to regional development. We have designed and determined how to administer $1.2 billion. We have responded to the overwhelming public interest in this initiative. We have made substantial and effective investments in western Canada. As always, in creating a new department, one has a challenge. I must say that although the agenda is full, I am confident that with the energy, the enthusiasm and the real knowledge of individual western Canadian men and women the new department, over the coming years, will have made an appreciable and permanent impact upon the economic diversification and strength of western Canada.
It is a program designed by western Canadians. It is a program that is headquartered in western Canada, and it is a program that will bring benefit to all of Canada by strengthening one region of Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in opening this debate on the proposed legislation for western diversification, I think it is important for us to draw to the attention of the House a story that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of yesterday which quotes the Chairman of the Manitoba Conservative caucus saying that "it will very helpful if the provincial Government did not criticize. It may end up getting more assistance in the western diversification". The story goes on that it is a basically "go along or get nothing" program. That is the import of the story.


Mr. Duguay:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: A little sensitive, aren't you?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay).


Léo Duguay: Madam Speaker, I do not have an objection to the Hon. Member quoting from a story, but I would rather that he quote it in context and all of it, then he will not be abusing my rights as an individual.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) is a little sensitive-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I know we will be touching some raw nerves in this debate. But if you read the story and the direct quotes from the Hon. Member for St. Boniface, who is Chairman of the Manitoba caucus, he said that it is not helpful to engage in fed bashing, and there are other quotes of a similar nature.
March 1, 1988


Léo Duguay: Quote the rest of it. Do not leave the good parts out.


Lloyd Axworthy: Under the present program, the Province of Manitoba has clearly been discriminated against. It has been discriminated against because it opposes the Government in certain major policy issues, according to the Member from St. Boniface.
What you have to translate is that the western diversification fund will really be a form of political blackmail. It will be used basically to extort compliance by the provinces to the particular and perverse policies of this Government-


Mr. Scowen:: That is nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: -or it will not get any grants, if they do not have to fit the particular political equation or standards.
There has been, I think, over the years, a basic standard of regional development, namely, that all regions and provinces get treated fairly and equitably, and one does not simply use things as political clubs to try to enforce compliance of specific measures if it is the considered opinion of a provincial Government that something is in the best interests or not in the best interests of its citizens. But this is not the way the so-called western diversification fund is being used. It is clearly politicizing in a highly sort of partisan way the use of federal funds in economic development, but not economic development that has any plan, rhyme, reason or blueprint to it; it is simply used as a basis of slushing those who you are in agreement with either in a partisan way-


Jack Scowen: That is the way the Liberals did things.


Lloyd Axworthy: -or where you are trying to enforce a kind of provincial government agreement to go along or give up.
The Minister in introducing his program said it was innovative, different and expansive and that it would do all these new things. I do not know where the Minister has been. This program for western diversification has far less money than was committed under previous Liberal Governments. It has a far less organizational base to it and it will be far less effective. Let me recite a few facts to the Minister while he sits there and giggles like a little boy who is caught with his finger in the plug.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Here comes the invisible fund now.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, let us talk about the invisible fund, the $4 billion committed under the Western Development Fund under the previous Government. Of the fund, $3.5 billion went into railway modernization. That was based upon extensive consultation with all the farms groups, all provincial Governments, and it was based on what is the single most important investment that could be made in western Canada, namely, to modernize the transportation system substantially. The Minister from Saskatchewan should know that if you do not
Western Economic Diversification Act
have an effective, efficient transportation system, you do not move potash, grain or logs.
In the late 1970s the railways were refusing to invest capital in the transportation system of the West. It was absolutely necessary for the federal Government to take the initiative to ensure a major investment in the infrastructure of western Canada. That was the $3.5 billion fund. That was not invisible money. That was cash and it is still being paid out.
The other part of the money, a $250 million fund, went for native economic development, which the Minister responsible should know something about. This Minister has deliberately frustrated that fund and has not given it the kind of encouragement or incentive to develop enterprises, businesses and activities for native people in western Canada. The economic plight of the native people was also identified as the single most important social and economic problem facing western Canada. We set up a bank to provide funding so they could start their own businesses and projects to help the aboriginal peoples throughout the West and in the Territories. This Government, not happy to see that kind of self initiative undertaken by native people, basically closed down that fund and basically, again, turned it into a slush fund. The Minister giggles and laughs, but I have told you, Madam Speaker, where the money went on that program.
In 1983-84, $1.2 billion was committed to western Canada in a two-year period under the ERDA agreements. In fact, that generated a total of $2.1 billion because we got matching funds from the provinces. The Minister says that nothing has ever been done before, but the fact is that the commitment of a specific regional fund for western Canada was twice what this Government is committing in terms of economic development funds.
It is true that in 1984 when this Government came to power, it cut back on many of those programs. It cancelled many of those programs. It stood in the way of many of those programs. The fact is that those commitments were made.
Once again, these agreements were signed in full cooperation and consultation with the provinces and each province was able to establish its priorities. They were able to work out with the municipalities clear objectives for each of the provinces. The agreements were signed, sealed legal documents, part of the regional fund. What happened, of course, is that Tories do not like successes, particularly those of other Governments, and so if they did not like the nature of the previous Government, they stood in the way.
At the same time, we had also committed substantial additional funds for employment and training. The Economic Council report had said that one of the most important areas for investment in the West was to upgrade substantially its workforce. Last year, Employment and Immigration spent $479 million in western Canada. For the next forecast year, according to the Estimates, $339 million will be spent, a net

March 1, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
reduction of $140 million. Is this the kind of influence the Minister is saying the western diversification agency will have? Is the kind of clout it will have the kind that will mean we will lose $140 million worth of employment and training funds for western Canada in one year alone? That in fact is down several hundreds of millions of dollars from where it was in 1984.
This is the great example of how the new agency will show western Canadians what kind of muscle it has around the cabinet table. The West will lose $140 million unemployment and training funds for western Canada. I would say that the Minister should be embarrassed and ashamed to claim that kind of influence when in fact all that happens is that projects are lost.
We talked about the need to expand scientific research and development. Under the previous mandate, we put the hydrology lab in Saskatoon, we established a cold water lab in Edmonton, we established-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What was that, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: The cold water lab at Edmonton had been established as part of the ERDA program.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Where was the money?


Lloyd Axworthy: We had the Canertech program for energy renewal resources in Winnipeg, and we had the NRC. A laboratory was going to give Canada a world-class centre for robotics.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And no money.


Lloyd Axworthy: All those things were cancelled by the Government. All these ideas, projects and initiatives were cancelled by the Conservatives.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Ideas, yes.


Lloyd Axworthy: We know that we are touching raw nerves. We know the Tories do not like to hear about what they cancelled. They are now talking about something in the future.
1 would ask why they did not keep in place the things that were already there. Why did they cancel them? Why did they withdraw them? Why did they take them away? Why did they set back western Canada's economic development several years simply out of political pique and political revenge? They cancelled projects that were on the books, ready to be implemented, because they did not like the colour of the projects. They did not like who had implemented them. That is a condemnation of the Tories.
Who can believe the Tories about the future? Who really believes their commitments when they took away what we had already?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Too bad, taking all those projects out of Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us deal with the projects in other provinces. We had other special kinds of projects. What are Canadians celebrating today and have celebrated in the past in western Canada? We have had two wonderful world expositions, the Olympics and Expo 86. Who provided initial federal funding for both those projects? It was the Liberal Government which initiated those projects and provided federal funding.
The Minister responsible for western diversification is now going into a laughing fit. The fact is that that is a way of covering up his embarrassment. If he thinks it is so funny, 1 would challenge him to rise and say who provided the initial funding for those projects.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, just on a point of order, the Hon. Member is putting forward things that are not accurate. He just drew to the attention of the House that the Liberal Government funded the Olympics, which were funded by 200 million in federal non-tax revenue dollars supplied under the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek).


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that is an example of how the Minister does not know what he is talking about. The federal Government also provided additional funding for all support services and for police services.
The Minister from Manitoba, the great success story of Manitoba, is here. The Minister responsible for the CF-18 is telling us how he would develop western Canada. That Minister was successful and really showed his muscle. He really showed his effectiveness when a bona fide, genuine high-technology project put forward by a western manufacturer was lost because of the political pressures of his colleagues. This Minister, who is here in the House, simply lost out because he did not know how to produce and still does not know how to produce.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: What is the Liberal position on that contract, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us turn now to the organizational case.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, yeah?


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, if they want to hear more, I have a long list of projects. If they want to talk about the projects, I could go on all day. I have a list of cancelled projects here, but government Members will hear about them during the election campaign. I do not have to repeat them now because the people of Manitoba and the people of western Canada already know what they are. That is why we are leading in the polls in that particular province.
Let us talk about the organizational question, which is very important. The Minister spoke about the need to show organized and co-ordinated activities at the federal level. What happened to the western cabinet committee that provided a co-
March 1, 1988

ordination unit at the highest level? It was not comprised of civil servants or Deputy Ministers. The western cabinet committee ensured-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: How many Members from western Canada were on it, elected Members, Lloyd? Elected?


Lloyd Axworthy: The proof of the effectiveness of that committee was in what was delivered. The Tories disbanded that cabinet committee. They got rid of its political influence. They neglected that opportunity to continue having a special committee of Cabinet for western Canada that would ensure at the highest levels of decision-making, reporting directly to the Planning and Priorities Committee, co-ordination and influence and the assurance that other activities of the Government would be properly construed.
The difference is that when we were in power, the CN was not laying off people in Winnipeg and Edmonton. The railways were not closing down. Canada Packers plants were not closing down. Projects were not being cancelled because we were able to make our case at the cabinet table. In fact, this Government is relying upon a group of civil servants to cover for it. That is what it is trying to pretend is great co-ordination.
Further to that, we had established in each of the provinces a federal economic development co-ordinator responsible for organizing and co-ordinating all the activities of all the federal agencies at that level and developing and instituting plans that would be made at the local and regional levels in full consultation with the provinces, the municipalities and the local business sector. That program was very effective and useful in ensuring that there were bottom-up developmental plans. An example of this would be the core area initiative in the City of Winnipeg and the North Portage development program. With an investment of $90 million in federal, provincial and municipal money, organized primarily by federal initiative, we were able to generate over $400 million in private capital.
This Government talks about the need to generate new activity in the private sector. However, it tends to forget that there must be a serious, clear blueprint developed in each of the regions, not simply a political slush fund. By the way, and I bring this to the attention of the House, it is unfortunate that specifically excluded in western diversification is the opportunity for urban redevelopment or community development programs. Specifically excluded is any investment in social programs that would provide incentives for people at the lower level to participate in western growth.
We have the example of the core area initiative started in 1980-81. It was a combination of physical redevelopment downtown, encouragement of small business, and the use of federal facilities such as the Air Canada buildings and the NRC centres. There was funding of special community-based social programs to help native people get training to move into the workforce, help senior citizens develop their own housing projects, and help residents of that area to develop some sense
Western Economic Diversification Act
of initiative for self-development. We did not exclude certain groups from assistance. It was a recognition that parts of the core areas of cities in western Canada such as Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, as well as the small communities, were suffering a terrible erosion.
One of the most important tools for economic development is the upgrading and refurbishing of the basic infrastructure of communities. You are not going to attract new business if you have a deteriorating core area. You are not going to get a new factory placed in a small community in Manitoba or Saskatchewan if you no longer have decent sewer lines, proper transportation, or if your school system is failing. You are not going to be able to attract new R and D centres if the universities in those areas are beginning to erode. Yet those areas are excluded under this plan. That flies in the face of some of the best and most useful practical examples, some of which we pioneered in the West.
The initiative we took in the core areas, while not perfect, was a demonstration of how you can combine social investment and economic development investment in a package to provide not only the refurbishing of a city but also to give people a chance.
About 40 per cent of new workers in western Canada will be native people. Unfortunately they come in without proper education or training. If they do not receive the kind of support necessary to become fully participating members of the workforce, then the economic development of western Canada will not occur. You cannot have 40 per cent of your workforce idle. You cannot have that kind of terrible tragedy taking place in front of you. Yet where is there in the plan any kind of program that addresses that fundamental issue in western Canada? Or that comes to grips with one of the most serious social and economic problems in Canada, certainly in western Canada? There is nothing here to provide the slightest bit of assistance or support to meet that very serious issue. Yet if we do not meet it, it will cost western Canada through a waste of human talent and increasing costs to our social service system.
The only proven way to provide an antidote is through development incentives. As I pointed out in my speech yesterday, why is it that even the simple provision of job training grants is being denied these kinds of organizations? Young natives in the core area of Winnipeg are no longer being given the opportunity even to get in an employment program because "it does not fit the high-tech training philosophy of the Canadian Jobs Strategy". You are not going to develop western Canada unless you deal with that problem. It seems to me that any Government sitting down and trying to analyse a blueprint of what is necessary in the West would have put that foremost. Yet we have a statement here from the western diversification office that it is premature to indicate resource allocation by organizational structure.
I am particularly surprised at the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). He of anyone in that Cabinet should be most cognizant of and sensitive to that

March 1, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
issue. When the opportunity came to put this issue forward as a clear priority, he ignored it totally. Ele has completely forgotten it. I simply say that this is not the way we will diversify the western economy.
Let me also point out another major economic exclusion which deals with the question of the need to develop major regional infrastructure programs. If you spend time talking to mayors and reeves of the smaller towns and bigger cities of western Canada, to provincial Ministers and many people in business, they realize that much of the infrastructure of western Canada has eroded. Look at the transportation and highway systems. We all know how fundamental transportation is to western Canada. It is our life-blood. It has enormous consequences. If we do not move the goods, we cannot sell them. Yet those systems are eroding. Provincial Governments have been cutting back. With the exception of the $3.5 billion that went into railway modernization, there has been very little going on.
Our highway system is in serious difficulty. We will have to substantially upgrade the transportation system. I am thinking in particular of the Port of Churchill. When I was in government we attempted to give that port new life. We attempted to upgrade its facilities to the point where they would be capable of offering new transportation opportunities in northern Canada. Four years later many of the projects under that agreement have still not been completed. The dust control system remains undone. That means the port is still languishing and uncertain about its future. Yet it is an alternative sea water port for the entire West. Here we are in this House talking about Arctic security, yet we are neglecting one of the most important ingredients, the transportation system. We are simply not talking about it.
The Minister talked about $42 million for a soil erosion program in Saskatchewan. I agree with it, but soil erosion is not going to be handled with $42 million. Look at the report done by Senator Sparrow and the Senate committee and you will see we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars to arrest the erosion of western Canada's most valuable resource, its soil. We need a major water bank development project from British Columbia right through to Manitoba.
What an opportunity under this program to tackle that kind of program! We can say we will not look at specific little projects here and there but we will look at the need to establish a regional plan, something that will give focus to the entire region. If you look at the Saskatchewan River basin, the Columbia River basin, and the Fraser River basin, moving over the Rockies, you will recognize that all of the West is linked by its water system. It does not recognize provincial boundaries or federal constituencies. If we do not do something about that in the very near future, as the Senate report properly indicates, then the life-blood of western Canada is going to ooze away, as it is doing now. We are losing hundreds of thousands of hectares per year under present conditions. It is not a future problem, it is an immediate problem. It has to be done now.
That should be a priority. Development of native people should be a priority. Employment training must be a priority. The infrastructure of western Canada must be a priority. Those are the kinds of initiatives 1 would have expected the Government to be committed to doing something about.
I am particularly surprised because the Government said it does not want to tinker or provide a bunch of meaningless little grants and subsidies. It said that the way to encourage the private sector, agriculture, minerals and others, is to put a framework in place in which private dynamics can work. Yet somehow the Government seems to have reversed its stand and gone the other way. There is nothing whatsoever in this program, as I read it, that provides the slightest opportunity for westerners to come together as a region, or bring together the provinces, the federal Government, and major business, to ask what are the priorities for the region and then use federal investment in those areas.
Another example is in the study done by the Economic Council on western transition. It points out that in the future there should be entitlements for western Canada. The Minister denied that there will be any entitlements. The Economic Council basically said that there should be entitlements in certain key areas, one of which, of course, is education and research and development. We are moving into the information age and if we are to apply all kinds of new techniques and innovations to our agricultural and resource industries we must have a clear commitment to ensure that the work is done in western Canada.
They talk about centres of excellence in various places. I have no argument with that. As I pointed out, the Liberal Government had centres of excellence in hydrology, robotics, and other areas. However, why have a centre of excellence when the engineering faculties no longer have money even to do typing? The research grants of the federal Government are now driven by corporate donations. We do not have big corporations in western Canada to help in those areas and, as a result, we tend to be at the low end of the scale. If we are going to fund research programs by private sector contributions, if we are not going to provide the universities with the capacity to do basic research in those areas and give proper funding to the schools and colleges in western Canada, we will not have the people or facilities to keep abreast of the modern world of information and technology. That is the new entitlement which western Canada needs.
In the 1920s when our ancestors were fighting for entitlements they fought for the Crow rate. They said that the entitlement in Confederation was to ensure that we have a transportation system based upon a cost which we can afford. The new western entitlement must be in education and research and development. We must ensure that when the Government gives out big procurement contracts there is a fair
March I, 1988

sharing. There must be a requirement that when the Government provides support to the funding councils the regional requirement must be administered and met.
If I may digress for a moment, when we passed the Western Grain Transportation Act we wrote into the Bill a specific clause that said that the railroads must source in the region in which they are undertaking their major level of activity. We also put a $50 million Western Industrial Transportation Fund in place to enable western suppliers and producers to make bids on those projects.
Not once since 1984 when the Government began to administer the Act has it made any effort to hold the railways accountable for that responsibility, to ask the CNR and CPR to what extent they are sourcing in western Canada and to what degree they are buying their goods and services in western Canada, or to use the sanction in the Bill which is that if they do not do that the Crow benefit can be withheld.
That is the kind of tough action on behalf of western Canada that one would expect from a Government which says it believes in western Canada. The Government has never done that. If you look at the records you will see that neither the previous Minister nor the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) ever set that as a priority. Instead the Government was piecing out the Western Industrial Transportation Fund in small projects across the West. The fund was retained, so the Conservatives must have thought it was a good idea, but they did not use it for its purpose which was to ensure that we would have a synergy between railway investment and sourcing which would have given western businesses an opportunity to move into a new area of activity. That is once again an opportunity lost. If the Minister says that that will now be a responsibility of the new agency, that is fine, but that has not happened over the past three years.
That is what I mean by an entitlement, the requirement to ensure that the federal Government, which has very large resources to invest in education, research, and procurement, ensures that there is a fair sharing. That must be done because at the present time there is not fair sharing. The record of federal procurement still is that 80 per cent of it takes place within the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto triangle. It takes almost an affirmative action for western Canada and Atlantic Canada to change that around. That is the kind of political muscle and political priority which we would expect from this agency. However, I did not hear the Minister talking about that. I did not hear him say that that is what this new agency will do.
I would even suggest that moving the agency out of the capital of Canada, away from the action, will make it less effective in getting the influence and making the case that has to be made on a day-by-day basis. In running a government it is the small details that count, the paper that comes across your desk every day and the access you have to other Departments. You have to be there to make yourself heard, to make your influence felt.
Western Economic Diversification Act
It may be that by detaching this agency it will lose its ability to make an impact, to make a strong political statement day by day, hour by hour, in this capital, which needs to be done in order not to lose the decisions on contracts, research, and grants which take place in Ottawa on a daily basis. In fact, the organizational base that has been constructed may be weakening the ability of western Canada to get the entitlement that it needs. That may in fact be the problem that we are facing in terms of this kind of organization.
There is less money than was put in before, there is a questionable level of co-ordination, and there is certainly less influence at Cabinet level. A number of things have already been cancelled and taken away which are not being replaced. Most important, there is no blueprint, no vision. There is no compelling set of priorities for western Canada which can be responded to. It does not have to be unilateral or arbitrary, but it should set out what must be done.
Only the federal Government has the capacity to do that at the regional level. It is very hard to get the Premier of Alberta to speak up for the Province of Manitoba. Certainly we have never seen that, as evidenced in the CF-18 case. However, because the federal Government represents a larger jurisdiction it should represent a larger vision. It should use its capacity as a national Government to set forward those kinds of priorities and ensure that they are implemented and organized on a regional level.
There is no such aspiration or sense of objective, which is so essential if western Canada is going to keep pace. I return to the basic point that we have seen in this country in the last three or four years a highly unequal, unfair level of growth. If you look at the growth rates in Canada you will see that the concentration of economic activity, jobs, investment, and placement has taken place in the central regions of Canada.
I am not arguing with those regions, but I am saying that it has increased the disparity. It is making the gap grow wider. To arrest that will take a very singular and strong-minded federal government setting out a whole new set of objectives and priorities for the regions.
That is not what we have had, that is not what we are receiving. The IRDP has been cancelled. It runs out in June. One of the important tools of the direct grants industry will cease to operate in June, and there is no sign that the federal Government intends to replace it. There have been major cutbacks in programs that the regions need; support in the fishing industry, in agriculture, and in research. There have been cutbacks in education and in major areas in which the regions have been able to develop specialized programs. If we allow that to continue the gap will grow wider and wider.
The only organization that has the ability to stop that and rewrite the balance is the federal Government, in effect the Parliament of Canada. The philosophy behind this measure is

March 1, 1988
Adjournment Debate
not the way it will happen. It is effectively separating the regions in trying to deal with the problem in isolation.
I would be much more supportive of a strong, effective department of regional industrial development which had a firm mandate, with real resources and a Minister that had real clout, rather than the fumbling Ministers we have seen in the last three or four years. We need a Department and a Minister that could exercise that kind of influence in Ottawa to ensure that the priorities set for the regions at the national level would be carried out with effectiveness and efficiency.
Much like a centrifugal force, if Canada is left to its market forces, and, in some cases, to its natural forces, it will tend to separate into fragments because the central agencies cannot hold it together. Generations of federal Governments have had the responsibility to try to control that centrifugal force through coherent leadership and direction from the central part of the country in terms of the national Government.
I submit that this program will not accomplish that goal or provide those opportunities. Western diversification is one of the most important issues in Canada in light of the problems I have already enunciated. If we allow the condition of native people in western Canada to deteriorate any further, we will face one of the most serious condemnations in our history. Canadians must come to grips with this issue.
We cannot allow the regions to become further alienated so that westerners increasingly feel they can no longer trust their national Government or federal institutions. This is already happening according to a survey last summer which showed that 30 per cent or 40 per cent of westerners would be prepared to vote for a western separatist Party. One hardly wants to see such a condition enhanced.
I believe this issue requires much more thought and creative ability than we see in this western diversification program. This is far more motivated by the political concerns of the Government rather than the national concerns. That is why I believe it is very important that we must and will have a new kind of western development program when a new government takes office in a very short period of time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)- Official Languages-The Promotion of Bilingualism and Linguistic Minorities-Role of Government/Commitment of Conservative Candidates Concerning Bilingualism-Prime Minister's Position; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Regional Industrial Expansion-
Government Funding and Policy/Cape Breton Development Corporation; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Acid Rain-Plan to Reduce Emissions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, are there not questions and comments at this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the Bill is
first brought forward for second reading, the first three Members to speak are allowed 40 minutes. There are no questions or comments following those speeches.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I believe the principles of the department we are discussing are certainly supported by all Members of the House and people in western Canada. The principles are that we have an office that will attempt to diversify the economy of western Canada. This is something we have needed for many years.
As well, coming from my populist CCF roots, I am a strong believer in the need for more decentralization in this country to allow local people more input into decisions that affect their lives and their communities. I certainly support those two principles which are very important in the establishment of this office.
The first requirement in order to make those principles work is money. While I suppose every Minister will agree that they do not have enough money, my concern as a western Member of Parliament is that there may not be enough money in the program to make it effective.
Many other government programs have been cancelled, to be rolled into this particular department. The Minister tells us that there is $1.2 billion over five years, which is roughly $60 million per province per year. I recognize that he is treating the West as one region rather than four provinces, but it still works out to $60 million per year per province.
Furthermore, there is a debate about how much of that is new money and how much is old money. I am sure different economists will give different opinions, that the Government will say it is mostly new money, and many others will say it is primarily recycled money from existing programs.
March 1, 1988

The former Finance Minister in the Government of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who just spoke, announced the Western Development Fund in the amount of some $4 billion at that time. When one compares the $4 billion in 1980, which was spent over some four years, with $1.2 billion, it is not very much, even if it is new money.
I have said privately and publicly that the Minister is one of the more competent and sincere Ministers in the Cabinet. I am sure he will do a good job with what he has. I sincerely hope that this particular office is more than just the western Conservative political office in anticipation of the approaching election, and that it will really mean something and develop into a meaningful institution.
My friend from Winnipeg mentioned in closing the problem of western separatism and alienation. He referred to a poll in which a large number of western Canadians would consider voting for a western independence or separatist Party in certain circumstances.
This debate is crucial because it is important that western Canadians be not misled and that the office being established will diversify the economy in western Canada. It is important that it be an office that is funded with a meaningful amount of new money. If not, it will only add to the western alienation that already exists.
We know about westerners turning to new political forces. That is how my Party began, with the CCF and Tommy Douglas many years ago. That is where a certain brand of the Conservative Party began, with John Diefenbaker in the 1940s and 1950s in Saskatchewan and across the Prairies. There is the Social Credit Party, which arose with western populism, and the western Canada concept. We now see Preston Manning's Reform Party in western Canada.
There is a significant feeling in western Canada that we have not received our fair share from Confederation. The worst that could happen is to have a new and promising department with a promising Minister which does not deliver in the way western Canadians believe it should.
The program before us today had several false starts over the last year or so. It was formally announced last August by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he spoke in the City of Edmonton, Alberta. It was unveiled about three weeks before the Government had tabled in this House two studies detailing the reasons for a $79 million overrun at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am sure you recall that overrun, Madam Speaker, in the Department of the former Minister, the then Hon. Member for Longueuil who is no longer in Cabinet.
We have also seen since this Government took office a tremendous cut-back in regional and economic development spending. In 1984 the Government spent some $14.8 billion on economic and regional development. The Estimates for 1987
Western Economic Diversification Act
were cutback to $11.8 billion. There is a cut-back of around $3 billion which is a very big drop. In its place, we have the western diversification office, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and FEDNOR which is the equivalent in northern Ontario.
I really wonder whether or not, when all the calculations are in, these new agencies will actually have as much money to spend as the old regional development program itself. As I have said, there is a certain amount of deja vu. I mentioned the Liberal Western Development Fund in 1980 of some $4 billion. I have also mentioned the fact that that was more money at that time than in our Budget today. In many cases, even that $4 billion is a bit of a phantom fund in terms of where all that extra money went. There are some more similarities. The bureaucratic head of the Liberal Western Development Fund was a gentleman named Bruce Rawson. After spending some time at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, he has now taken up Deputy Minister duties at the Edmonton headquarters of the western diversification office.
I have already mentioned the fact that there is some $1.2 billion allocated to this particular department. There is a debate as to what is new and what is old. That is a very interesting debate because what we should be emphasizing here is that there are three program instruments, once the responsibility of DRIE that have ended or are about to end in the very near future. The first program is the Industrial Research and Development Program, IRDP, which will terminate in June of 1988. The lesser known program is the Western Transportation and Industrial Development Program, WTIDP. That is now finished but there are several ongoing projects which are funded fifty-fifty. The third program is the Economic and Regional Development Agreements, ERDA. These agreements expire in 1989 and 1990.
The Western Transportation and Industrial Development Program was re-jigged, in a sense, to become the western diversification office's main funding instrument, known as the Western Economic Diversification Program. Some of the ERDA agreements are the responsibility of Departments such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Science and Technology, Transport Canada, and so on. In other cases, the responsibility formerly with DRIE is transferred to the western diversification office. You can see, Madam Speaker, that the other programs that were there at one time will now no longer be in place.
The Minister stated in the House today a number of the purposes for the western diversification office and for the Bill before the House today. The Prime Minister himself, when he made the announcement, stated the mandate of the western diversification office. First it was important we have an office to co-ordinate and communicate all federal programs and activities that contribute to the economic development and diversification of the West. Second, the program will support business infrastructure to further the economic development and diversification of the western economy. Third, the office

March 1, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
will undertake activities that will facilitate the creation of new enterprises and business consistent with our evolving international treaty policy. Fourth, it will represent the interests of western Canada in the development of national policies and the design of national programs to ensure that western Canada is effectively linked to decision-making in Ottawa. Those are the four things the Prime Minister spoke about, and the Minister also mentioned them earlier on this afternoon.
While the western diversification office views itself as a funder of last resort, its most interesting role is that of coordinator of federal programming in western Canada. Considering the important presence of larger and more powerful Departments such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the West, the co-ordinator function will take considerable determination by the Minister and his Deputy. It is easier to imagine these Departments locked in a tense policy struggle with the western diversification office, and with the western diversification losing in the end despite the good intentions of the Minister or the Deputy Minister.
This will be a small department without the clout of the Department of Finance, for example. There is a dispute taking place right now with respect to interest rates where the Bank of Canada is saying that interest rates should not come down because the economy is overheated in southern Ontario. I argue that interest rates in western Canada should come down because when interest rates are high they tend to drive up the Canadian dollar and make it more difficult for us to export to the United States. What kind of clout will this Minister have in his new department when it comes to arguing with the Department of Finance, with the Minister in charge of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Agriculture or, indeed, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? The Minister suggests that his regional department will be guiding the expenditures of departmental A bases. That will be quite an accomplishment given the eminence of the Departments I have already mentioned. Therefore, I am not sure what influence, in the final analysis, this department will have, particularly when the headquarters of the new department will be in Edmonton rather than in the City of Ottawa where there would be contact with other key policy makers in the normal course of duties.
Another role of the western diversification office is to act as a "pathfinder" which ties in with the role of being a "funder of last resort", and the Minister referred to that earlier. When a prospective applicant for funding arrives at one of the four western diversification offices, the first thing the officers will do is to determine whether or not the project can be dealt with by another funding agency or department. In other words, the first thing they will look for is a way to refer the applicant to another department or to another agency. It appears that only after an applicant has exhausted all other avenues, will the western diversification office step in and consider being a funder of last resort.
Judging from the projects announced thus far, and many offers have been made, as the Minister has announced in the House and elsewhere, the small and medium-sized businesses can take little comfort in the trend. Perhaps it is only a trend. I am not sure whether this will be the record after two or three years. So far, there does not seem to be much of a bias towards smaller and medium-sized businesses by this particular department. By way of example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business expressed considerable exasperation with the western diversification office.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is not exactly a radical socialist organization. It is a fairly conservative institution, as the Minister himself would agree. There have been many big ticket projects announced, including some which ought to have been funded through normal departmental spending, for example, millions of dollars for a salmon enhancement program that ought to have been funded through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in a regular departmental budget. Perhaps the Minister at some time will explain why this particular program, costing millions of dollars, was funded through the western diversification office.
The title of this Bill is the Western Economic Diversification Act. Some of the programs funded so far do not have anything to do with diversification. They are for development. We have nothing against development, but it seems to me that the main purpose here is to diversify the western economy. Perhaps the salmon program should have been an ongoing development program, funded through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
There are two notable large private sector projects that leave some people in western Canada wondering. The American-owned B.F. Goodrich company picked up some $418,000 for a project that would create no new jobs at the plant. This is money that it states will maintain existing jobs. The press release itself stated that there would be the creation of no new jobs in this particular case.
In addition, the second largest pulp and paper company in Japan will benefit from a $9.5 million contribution from the western diversification office. This is the second largest plant in Japan in the pulp and paper business. One might have expected that these huge companies could have generated their own funds internally or could have borrowed money from the banks or financial institutions, but that was not the case. On the one hand, it is B.F. Goodrich, and on the other hand it is Daishowa, the second largest pulp and paper company in Japan.
Perhaps it is only circumstance that in these first announcements some money has gone to large foreign-based companies. But it is a bit of a trend-setter that has many westerners in small and medium-sized business concerned about the priorities of the Government across the way.
March 1, 1988

It might also be suggested that $9.5 million that was offered to the shakes and shingles industry was to make up for past transgressions of the Minister of International Trade (Ms. Carney). There was the dispute in the shakes and shingles industry where the Minister of International Trade was on the hot seat in terms of how she had handled that portfolio vis-avis the forest industry in British Columbia. The Fraser Valley Independent Shakes and Shingles Producers Association is receiving the $9.5 million to attempt to put up U.S. demand for its products. All this is after that controversial tariff that was in place.
Since the outset of the program there have been complaints from many observers, and some people say most observers, that $1.2 billion over five years is a very small amount of money. I know that there have been complaints about this, and earlier I referred to the fact that it works out to approximately $60 million per province per year divided between the four western provinces.
The Premier of Manitoba has stated that Manitoba should be receiving some more money. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been quoted in the newspapers in Manitoba as stating that he supports the Premier of Manitoba and that Manitoba should receive around $300 million as its share.
If one looks at the projects approved from August 4, 1987 up to February 22, 1988, in a survey of the four offices, there have been projects worth $275.8 million allocated for expenditure. Using the information that we have, we find out that Manitoba appears to be losing the race. British Columbia has received commitments for $152 million; my province of Saskatchewan is not doing too badly with commitments of $95 million; Alberta has received commitments of $22 million; and Manitoba has received commitments of $6.8 million.
I suppose that is why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a little concerned, and why Premier Pawley is rightfully concerned, about the moneys allocated. 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) will rise in the House in the next couple of days and say that he too is concerned about the fact that Manitoba is thus far on the lower end of the scale.
I know that the Minister across the way is treating the West as one region, but even although he treats it as one region he must be very careful that there is equity between the provinces and equity between the regions within the region of western Canada. There are varying unemployment levels and varying needs from one province to the other, and indeed within the provinces. A concern that a number of people have is where the funding and the money is going.
Is the western diversification office going to be a vehicle for patronage? In 1984 the Prime Minister stated that it was only the Liberal Party that exercised this terrible thing called patronage, and that he would end that particular practice. Since the Prime Minister took office there has been an awful lot of patronage handed out to the friends of the Prime
Western Economic Diversification Act
Minister and other people in the Cabinet of the Conservative Party that sits across the way.
In this particular case there is no board of directors dominated by Tory appointees, as is the case with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, a noted friend of the Tory Government, a gentleman named Michael Walker of the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, stated, "Unfortunately the way they're going to spend it will be determined by political interests, not economic interests . .. the reason they're doing this is not to improve the western economy, but to improve their political fortunes".
That was stated by a friend of the Conservative Party in the Fraser Institute. I wish to point out that there is always a danger here that there could be considerable political patronage.
I wish to return to the $1.2 billion. I said it was very important that, if we do have a diversification office, it diversifies the economy of western Canada and it also has enough money to make it meaningful and significant for western Canadians.
Recently, when discussing the $1.2 billion, the current Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) stated, "It sounds like a lot of money, but in the over-all scheme of things it is not that great". I suppose you often hear, Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament saying that they need more money or more funding.
I remember the time when many years before I was elected to this place C.D. Howe lost the election to Doug Fisher in Thunder Bay when he rose in the House and said, "What is a million?" But $1.2 billion in western Canada over five years is not that much money, particularly because a lot of it is not new money. The Minister in charge of Grains and Oilseeds and in charge of the Wheat Board has stated, "It sounds like a lot of money, but in the over-all scheme of things it is not that great".
A Financial Post editorial stated, "... There is no doubt whatever that the potential contribution of Ottawa's western diversification initiative is truly piddling. Fifty million dollars per province per year won't diversify very much".
One of the more prominent members of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), when speaking to the Downtown Rotary Club of Edmonton stated, "The recently announced western diversification strategy, though inadequate in its funding, is certainly a modest step in the right direction". The Hon. Member talks about it being "modest", going in the "right direction", but certainly "inadequate in its funding".
Frank Came, a senior officer with the western diversification Ottawa office, stated, "The fund is not all that big when you look at the amount of capital".

March 1, 1988
Montreal Gulf Refinery
I wish to return to the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona. When he left the Conservative caucus approximately one year ago, one reason for doing so was his impatience with the Government's launching of the western diversification office. The following was written by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona in 1981 in response to the Liberal Western Development Fund. "The sending of Bruce Rawson to Edmonton as the federal Government's senior adviser on Western Canadian affairs will be seen by many westerners as another in a long series of gimmicks from a regime which sees our region primarily as a convenient whipping boy in an attempt to shore up political support elsewhere".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that 1 must interrupt the Hon. Member. When the House resumes debate on this Bill there will be 16 minutes left, if the Hon. Member wishes to continue.
It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPORTANCE OF SAVING GULF OIL REFINERY
Jean-Claude Malépart: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of intervening in the matter of the Gulf refinery of Montreal East in order to save the hundreds of jobs which are threatened and to protect Quebec consumers, thus respecting the unanimous resolution of the National Assembly of Quebec.
He said: Madam Speaker, first of all, I realize it seems a bit odd to be talking about the Gulf refinery today. However, we must not forget I put this motion on the Order Paper on October 1, 1986, and that despite the delay, and in the present circumstances, the problems of the petrochemical industry in Montreal East and what remains of the Gulf refinery are still very much with us.
I would like to start by providing some background to explain the reasons for this motion. First of all, all the facilities belonging to Gulf Canada had been purchased by Petro-Canada, and this included all refinery and service operations, all facilities located in Ontario, Western Canada and Quebec.
The House may recall that the Reichmann brothers and the Atlantic provinces had decided to sell the refinery and service station operations because, according to our information, the Conservative Government did not want Petro-Canada to invest more in upgrading these operations. Now, following the
purchase proposals, another company, Ultramar, announced it would buy all installations in Quebec and the Maritimes, with the admitted intention-this is a British company-of closing down the Gulf refinery operations in Montreal's east end, while maintaining service operations. Gaz Metropolitan was bidding on the same installations, but unlike Ultramar, it intended to continue to operate the Gulf refinery as well as the service stations.
Under the rules of Investment Canada, the Conservative version of FIRA, Ultramar, as a foreign company, required the Government's authorization to purchase the Gulf refinery. We know that the Minister at the time, and Cabinet, in full possession of the facts, agreed. However, this was not what the National Assembly and most groups wanted, and at the time, several Conservative Members resigned to make the federal Government say no to Ultramar, because it had the power to do so, and I think it had a duty to say no to Ultramar, which was a foreign company. If two Canadian companies had been involved, the Conservative Government could hardly have been blamed for acting the way it did, because it did not have the power to prevent normal competition and thus would not have been responsible for the consequences.
But in view of the fact that a foreign company had to have Cabinet approval, and this is unfortunate, at that point there has even been Conservative Ministers who supposedly resigned over that. But that is not the important point to recall, in my view. It is rather the fact that at the time, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) on the Conservative side, who was Minister of Transport, stated that people in Cabinet, people in caucus and the Ministers when they gave that approval lacked important information. That statement did not come from a Liberal, or an NDP, or a labour leader-it was made by someone in Cabinet, who had access to information and who blamed her colleagues for blindly approving, and we know very well that it has been proven there was a lack of refining capability in Quebec and there were surpluses across Canada.
But it must be stated today that while there were 450 employees at that time, that company has now been converted to Kemtec and there are now 250 employees, and if that industry was not completely shut down it is thanks to the representatives of the Gulf refinery employees, that is the former refinery, Messrs. Chouinard, Baril and Tremblay who never stopped fighting. At the time they got involved, they formed a coalition and so on. It will be remembered that the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) came to make a show, by signing the petition ... he would not sign it in front of the cameras for fear of his Leader-he wanted to have a cake and eat it too.
But we succeeded in saving the industry, thanks to the actions of the Quebec Energy Minister, Mr. Caccia, and the Bourassa Government, with Lavalin corporation, to ensure that the company would be saved, and today there are 250 jobs, there is no more refining work done and consumers are not protected. The Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. March 1, 1988

Toupin) who was sitting on the Conservative side at the time, who was sitting in caucus, himself recognized the situation we are now in, namely that consumers are footing the bill for this Conservative Government's action! But at least some jobs were saved.
But that is part of a whole and we must consider that in the case of the eastern part of Montreal, as 1 was saying this afternoon, people have been pushing for 27 months . . . and today I feel that the people of East Montreal should be proud of the fact that they stuck together, that they took certain steps, that they were patient and of what they were able to obtain for the eastern part of Montreal, even if they had to go against what some people wished at the municipal, provincial and federal levels . . . and I know that it is not easy for part of a large center such as Montreal, even though the western part of Montreal is doing well, even though in some regions industry has been successful and has forced governments at all three levels to come up with what people have been asking for-
Mr. Speaker, I can remember when I first set up the Committee for the survival of East Montreal on October 15, 1985. At that time we had Vickers, Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheels, Laforge, Parisette, SKD. As a result, it is certain that we can be proud of the City of Montreal, given that S90 million have been announced to help develop East Montreal. The provincial Government will provide $105 million in financial assistance.
But what is important is not that the $50 million which the Quebec Government has committed were for upgrading and restructuring businesses but also, and here is where I touch upon the petrochemical sector, were earmarked for manpower retraining since it will be remembered that 150 of the 250 Gulf employees still have to be repositionned. A percentage of the workers have been able to take early retirement, but others need new placement. There is no doubt it costs money to retrain a refinery worker for a job with Bombardier in the building of engines, and the companies do not have that money.
So what is interesting in the provincial Government's announcement of $105 million is that, besides modernizing and re-structuring industries, the Government will allocate funds to industries who will settle in Montreal East so they will be able to change the situation-the Soligaz project that will contribute to the development of the petro-chemical sector comes to my mind-hire those people, finance their training and later recover the costs.
I think the provincial Government should be congratulated for its handling of that matter. Even though the federal Government did not deliver all the goods, as was to be expected, I am happy because there was nonetheless an amount of $37 million. If we had not applied those pressures, I do not think our needs would have been recognized. So the Government had no choice. It had no intention of helping the people of Montreal East, but it could not do otherwise from a
Montreal Gulf Refinery
political point of view. Municipal and provincial governments took the initiative, as were groups and various parties who forced the hand of the federal Government. Still, I believe that without that concerted effort, that money would not have been allocated to Montreal East, and today we can be proud.
There is, however, another timely and important project which the Quebec Minister of Energy, Mr. Ciacia, will have to address. He is currently pressing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to respond and to promote the Soligaz project in Montreal East not only to ensure survival of the petrochemical industry but also to create employment and so on.
Madam Speaker, I think that although the resolution is no longer timely as far as helping the Gulf refinery, it is still important to consider what renamed Kemtec is now doing, the important Soligaz project in Montreal East as well as the economic restructuration of that area .. . From articles that appeared in newspapers when the governments made the announcements, I suggest there was general agreement when the City of Montreal announced its action plan to restructure and help Montreal East. All the people present-management and union representatives as well as politicians-were unanimously satisfied.
If we look at newspaper articles reporting people's reactions, we see that when Minister Johnson announced before all the concerned parties the Quebec government action plan, everybody was openly invited without discrimination: management, union, municipal, provincial and federal representatives of all political stripes, and everybody was unanimous, everybody was proud.
When the federal Government made its announcement, once again as for many important issues dealing with Montreal, there were disappointments and disputes. Unfortunately, the workers at the Vickers plants and those at the Gulf refinery were unable to get relocated, but everybody expected that the federal Government would announce that an important part of the program would be an early retirement plan for older workers which would allow those workers to get a decent income and at the same time would have created jobs for younger workers as well as training programs which had been announced by the Quebec Government.
This clearly indicates the response of Canadians who are unbiased. When the Liberal Government in Quebec made its announcement, people at the meeting, representatives of the CNTU, the QFL and the Steel Workers as well as representatives of other groups who were not Liberal partisans were proud and pleased with that announcement, especially the human approach to the proposals made in the Pichette report which recommended that substantial funds should be earmarked for the modernization and restructuration of businesses and that he also allotted funds to support employability. All those who were there gave the same response to the City of

March 1, 1988
Montreal Gulf Refinery
Montreal even if they had not voted for the union but they were happy about it.
However when we read the comments from various sources, we even learn about the tantrums of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs.Jacques) at that meeting, which caused great disappointment. However, after two years or 27 months of struggle, I have to thank the federal government for its response even if it was strained.
However, there still remains the important issue of Soligaz and I know that the Tory members will rise as usual. They will say that the federal Government has done this and that. However each time you ask people involved in the industry, they realize full well that as far as railways are concerned, the decision of the Tory Government in 1984 has been disastrous and this is why they made a racket at the press conference, because they felt that the answer was inadequate.
You will be told just about the same thing by Mr. Beaubien of Vickers. As for Serge Baril, who is president of the union of Gulf refinery workers, and other workers at the former Gulf refinery and Kemtec, they will all tell you that it is a disappointment.
I therefore trust that the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and some of his colleagues will have good news for us about the Soligas project. Or, as in the case of the development of the Old Port in Montreal, the space agency and the Port of Montreal, will it be necessary to form another survival or action committee for the Soligas project, which is related to the petrochemical industry and which will have a direct impact? At this very moment, Kemtec exists and is in operation. It is part of the former Gulf refinery. However, without the Soligas project, this industry will develop much more slowly and its future will be much more uncertain in coming weeks.
As I had 20 minutes, or until 5:20 p.m., Madam Speaker, I still have four or five minutes left. I would like the Conservative Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and the Conservative Members from East Montreal to take part in the debate. It is unfortunate that no Conservative Member representing East Montreal is doing anything in this matter. I would have liked to hear their views and I am sure that the residents of East Montreal would like to hear what those Members believe their Government should do. Unfortunately, they seem to have other concerns. As I was saying, I would like them to take part in this debate to tell us when the Soligas project will come on stream. When will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) have enough backbone to speak to the Energy Board and convince certain oil multinationals that this project is feasible? He should tell them that the project should be approved and the funds allocated.
When the Western banks were in trouble, the Government did not wait very long before taking action. There was no need to create survival committees, to go through all kinds of red tape and to organize protests. Someone at the Prime Minister's
Office immediately said that the Government should help the banks.
When the farmers in Western Montreal were in trouble, and I have nothing against the fact that they received some assistance, they did not have to do anything, perhaps because the Conservative Members of Parliaments and Ministers of that region did their job. The problem in Quebec is caused by the Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament who are not doing their job. We saw this in the case of the shipyards. We were led down the garden path in the matter of the frigate contract. Even the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) rose and said: It is not true; the figures are not right. His own Minister then said that the figures were true and accurate.
I believe that we were had in the case of the shipyards. Then, there is the question of the railway workers. Jobs have been lost and the CN is talking about transferring more jobs from Montreal to Toronto. In the matters involving the Gulf refinery, the footware industry, Domtar, as well as Canadair for the F-18's, there had to be public consultation, because there was a lack of truly efficient representation within the caucus and Cabinet.
1 will conclude, Madam Speaker. Do you realize that there is no one with enough clout to sit in the Cabinet, no representative of the City of Montreal, with enough strenght, importance and competence to act as Parliamentary Secretary to protect the interests of Montreal.
There are four or five Tory Members, but they cannot do anything for the City of Montreal for lack of clout. When you realize that Mr. Peladeau, from Le Journal de Montreal, and Mr. Landry, from La Presse, had to pay for advertising spots to say: "Montreal, c'est spatial", when you realize that a Liberal MPP and a PQ MPP had to say that they feel Montreal is "spatial", the situation is very serious.
In Toronto, they do not have to do anything like this, for they have people to represent them. In Greater Montreal, give me the names of the Ministers or the Members of this House ... Well, you can forget about the Ministers, for there is not a single one representing that area, and there is not even a Parliamentary Secretary to protect Montreal's interests.
Madam Speaker, I still have a few moments left. I dare hope that Tory Members, including the Hon. Member for Duvernay who advocated doing away with Petro-Canada and tax reduction on gas, will tell us that the Government will announce tomorrow that the Soligaz project will go ahead and that the Government will inject $50 million in it.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Madam Speaker, as a Member for the Conservative Party, I welcome this opportunity to speak in response to my hon. colleague, who is not exactly covering new ground. He
March 1, 1988

presented this motion in 1986, and today, it looks a lot worse for wear than the refinery in question. It is really too bad the Hon. Member is getting all fired up about things he should be thoroughly ashamed of, Madam Speaker. Today, I would like to put the closing of the Gulf refinery into its real perspective, and I will then try to get the Hon. Member's head out of the clouds, because as far as I can see, he still does not have his two feet on the ground, and it is really too bad we have only ten minutes to respond to this kind of 20-minute speech.
First of all, Madam Speaker, 1 don't know whether you realize that Gulf was the thirteenth refinery to close in Montreal East. At the time, in February 1983, the Texaco refinery closed. And believe it or not, I was all alone on Sherbrooke street with my small team of union people, and one of the youngest, one of the best is still with us, Mrs. Madeleine Parent. The union had invited my colleague, the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). The Hon. Member answered he could not take part in our demonstration because of party solidarity, and of course I always respect Members who stick with their Party. And what happened, madam Speaker? Texaco, with 420 employees, closed down. We never heard a word about this from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. In Montreal, in case my colleague does not remember, the four that closed were Texaco, BP, Esso and Gulf.
I may also remind the House there were four in 1982-83, with a fifth in 1985. However, as you know, Madam Speaker, in this kind of business, you don't lose 40 per cent of your production in twelve months. It was the destructive energy policy. And that is why I entered politics, because I did not like the system we had under the Liberals. Subsequently, in 1983-84-85, ten refineries closed, including four in Quebec. We never heard a word about this from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. He never came to see us in Montreal East. Never! In fourteen months, Madam Speaker, between February 1983 and May 1984, and I looked at my old notes, the former Liberal Government saw nine Canadian refineries close down, including three in Montreal. These closings meant that 1,870 employees were laid off, of which 1,080 in Montreal. During the last ten years, the demand for oil has dropped considerably, a total of 40 per cent in Quebec.
Why did it drop? Madam Speaker, you will remember the Liberal Party's subsidy program. I happen to be an expert in the field, and I got sucked in to this program. I said to myself: Okay, we will stop our dependence on Arab oil and plug into James Bay. And so we did. So what is happening today? Gulf refinery employees are out of a job. Texaco employees are unemployed. Madam Speaker, nobody wants to heat with oil, after all the publicity for electric appliances in Quebec, for James Bay and electric power. The campaign was so successful that today, now that 40 per cent of Quebecers have switched to electric power, the price of heating oil, which was 40 cents a litre under the previous Government's energy policy, has now dropped to 20 cents a litre. What about electric power? Every year, every month ... there is an increase. When it used to
Montreal Gulf Refinery
cost $700 to heat a house, it now costs $400. A house which used to cost $700 in heating oil thanks to the National Energy Program now costs $350.
My Hon. friend said earlier that it was bad for consumers. I should like him to explain to me why it was bad for the consumer who used to pay 60 cents a litre of gas, to pay 51 cents now in Laval. I have just received an hour ago confirmation that the price of a litre of gas in Laval is down to 51 cents a litre. It was 60 cents under the National Energy Program. Does this penalize the consumer! I know a number of consumers back home who feel that it is not enough and wish they were penalized more.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Ask Wilson, he is the one who raised the price.


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, Wilson raised the price, because he needs these taxes to pay your debts, gentlemen. Let me tell you something: Even in spite of Wilson's tax on gas, you have not yet admitted that the price is still lower then before.
Madam Speaker, my Hon. friend said earlier that the Federal Government had to take $50 million instead of giving
them.	It gave us some money, but not much. How strange it is, for they killed Petromont in Varennes. They have never been forced to put $50 million. They killed it. They said: Let's kill it. The Conservative Party has revived it. Go to Varennes or ask the Hon. Member representing this city and he will tell you that the people there are not going to forget what you did
then.
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have never yielded to Petromont. Maybe we have yielded in Montreal East. Under these circumstances, it is a pleasure to yield. Maybe we are more humane than others ...
Madam Speaker, it is possible that my Hon. friend did not do so on purpose, but he spoke against Ultramar. Just the same, Ultramar is a Canadian company. It is a company which is doing a good job in the Quebec area. At a Quebec caucus, Ultramar had promised ...


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, it is not enough for him to be employed by a British company to make the mistake of saying that Ultramar is indeed a British, and not a Canadian company, and that's why it had to apply to the Agency ...


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, Ultramar put it this way: If we buy the service stations we would even be prepared to to move our head office from Toronto to Montreal. I can tell you today that at least they did live up to that promise, not to mention the fact that Ultramar is quite an innovating company. They are not forever asking for grants. These people can

March 1, 1988
Montreal Gulf Refinery
indeed hold their own in the industry. There are 960 stations and 960 gas dealers, all of them quite happy, a far cry from what I witnessed in the past. It used to be that some oil companies did not exactly bring happiness to their ... There is another one which my colleague opposite has forgotten. Let us stop blaming the Conservatives for everything. There must have been another government which created problems because they were there when we took over.
Madam Speaker, a great politician whom I have always admired even though he was a Liberal made a guest appearance on Radio-Canada's Le Point. I am referring to Mr. Jean Chretien who openly admitted that this shutdown had been expected for some years. My colleague was not aware of that, but I will take the word of an outstanding politician like Jean Chretien.
This also came about as a result of a 40 per cent drop in demand for petroleum products. My colleague forgot to mention that. There was a sharp decline because the Liberals gave us grants to switch from heating oil to electricity, so we are all responsible for the Gulf refinery demise because all those who made the switch did not stop to think that some day someone would be out of a job. The same thing can be said of a Member or any other Canadian who stops at a self-service station: that is like taking a job away from somebody. How many have done that? How many here can stand and say: I never did stop at a self-service station. Those who do are responsible for job losses. In gasoline distribution alone there has been a loss of 18,000 jobs, yet nobody said anything about that.
Another thing I should like to put on the record because it is important, Madam Speaker, is that to this day nobody knows who is telling the truth in the sale of Gulf, and journalists have yet to clear the issue. The offer from Gaz Metropolitain, is it from Conservative Members, from my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, or from Mr. Pierre Martin of Gaz Metropolitain?
Well, Pierre Martin did mislead us. He was supposed to make an offer of about $120 million. He failed to come through before midnight Sunday, but he made another offer after the deadline. This man misled us because earlier in the week he had promised he would make an offer.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, Mr. Martin said that had he offered $120 million he would now be the owner of the Gulf refinery. Mr. Martin did acknowlege he was wrong.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker-I know I have little time left and that I cannot respond to all questions because my colleague had 20 minutes while I have only ten-better a bad medicine than a mere band-aid! Madam Speaker, we all know that often the best medicine is the worst tasting.
Then there was a great poet who once suggested that the less the cart carries the noisier it is.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Otawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I find it surprising that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has decided to use the debate on his motion to talk about the future of Montreal East, the future of its industry and its jobs.
Madam Speaker, first of all 1 think a few comments are in order, and I would like to point out that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie experienced a political resurrection after the election in 1984, when he became a Member of the Opposition. Before he was silent. In fact, he had hardly ever taken the floor in the House of Commons. Since 1984, however, he has become a man of the people. I appreciate his contribution because he does a very good job. However, why didn't he start sooner, before he became a Member of the Opposition?
Madam Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious that the deterioration of the industrial complex in Montreal East started before 1984. In fact, it started when the Liberals were in power, under the Party to which the Hon. Member belongs.
Madam Speaker, at the time the Liberals had 74 out of 75 seats in Quebec. They had all the seats on Montreal Island, but not a single Member from Montreal ever mentioned this question in the House of Commons.
How come unemployment, the deterioration of the industrial complex and plant closings started under the Liberals, when Prime Minister Trudeau, Pierre Deniger and Mrs. Hervieux-Payette all came from ridings near Sainte-Marie?
Mr. Don Johnson from Westmount, Marc Lalonde, Serge Joyal, Francis Fox, Monique Begin-they all had a strong voice in the Liberal Cabinet. Nevertheless, the deterioration we are talking about today started under the Government represented by those Members and Ministers. As the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) pointed out earlier, even when the refinery in Montreal was closed down, there were no objections from backbenchers like the Hon. Member for Sainte-Marie.
Madam Speaker, the problem is not just one that was created by the Liberals. It is a problem that has continued to exist under a Conservative Government that has been in power since 1984.
Madam Speaker, the House will recall that the Prime Minister promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". Today, however, 20,000 people in Montreal East are unemployed and 10,000 are on welfare.
And despite the openness and progressive policies promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during his campaign in 1984, what did he do? He did his very best to ignore what was happening to the people of Montreal East.
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Goverment set up all kinds of task forces to assess the disastrous economic situation in Montreal East and make recommendations.
March 1, 1988

Need I repeat that unemployment has risen to disastrous proportions in areas like Maisonneuve, Rosemont, Riviere-des-Prairies, Pointe-aux-Trembles, and so forth?
So, Madam Speaker, even in 1987 we saw that unemployment in those districts was much higher than the average for the whole Montreal area.
Madam Speaker, under such a difficult situation, we would have thought the Conservative Government would take strong action, especially since there was a series of recommendations from various reports urging the Prime Minister and his colleague the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to act in order to stop the loss.
Last week, the Minister in charge of the Montreal area finally came up with his response after many months of delay. His answer was that over the next five years, $35 million of new money would go to industrial renewal in East Montreal.
So this Mulroney Government could not live up to the expectations of the Quebec people, and especially the people in Montreal.
With a financial package that is much smaller than the monies previously announced by the City of Montreal, $90 million over five years, and the Quebec Government, $106 million over three years, Madam Speaker, the Canadian Government abdicated its responsibilities. It has proved incapable of exercising the leadership that should be expected from a national government.
No wonder the two other levels of government preferred not to join with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister in charge of Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) at the time of announcing the respective programs. The Mulroney Government's contribution was so insignificant they would have appeared ridiculous.
Madam Speaker, it is a matter of deep concern that the views of the various parties that made recommendations, for instance in the report submitted by the committee for economic and job renewal in East Montreal, the CREEM, were totally ignored.
Madam Speaker, as a member for that area, you know that the CREEM recommended the establishment of a bureau to help companies in that area restructure and modernize, but those recommendations were ignored by the government. The CREEM recommended a policy of preferred procurement under which the Government would be bound to favour companies in East Montreal. Now, such a policy of concentrated procurement is difficult to support even for this party. However, buying Canadian is something that could be done, but governments ignore that. The CREEM recommended the establishment of a special training fund to help workers in restructuring companies.
Madam Speaker, this Government's only response was: We gave training courses to 500 workers. At that rate, it could
Montreal Gulf Refinery
take some 40 years before the 20,000 unemployed in the area are retrained.
Another recommendation suggested that East Montreal be identified as a target area in order that older workers may benefit from manpower adjustment programs, which was ignored by the Government, Madam Speaker, and also to put forward specific measures to promote the hiring of East Montreal workers. Once again, Madam Speaker, we could have followed that program, but those recommendations were made to no avail and once again were ignored by the Government.
So what should we say? We have to say that neither the Liberals who were in power previously nor the Tories who have been in power since 1984 have endeavoured to restore a real insdutrial basis in that important district of one of our largest cities, the Montreal metropolitan area. As New Democrats, we believe that in our quest for economic and social justice for our fellow citizens, we have to include the greater Montreal area. We must, Madam Speaker, accept almost all recommendations of CREEM, since there are people in the field who have made suggestions and drawn up a plan which would establish a partnership among the three levels of government which could co-operate.
It is clear that our Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has been brushed aside by the other two levels of government which were dissatisfied with the issues discussed by the three governments.
Madam Speaker, we believe that it should be possible for the three levels of government to work with the private sector; on one hand, to ensure the retraining of human resources in the area and on the other hand, to provide some industrial revitalization and ensure a true industrial future for that region, a real renaissance in Montreal East since it is one of the key sectors of the industry in Quebec and in the country.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed regrettable that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) insists on taking up valuable House time to respond to an old problem that no longer exists. The closure of the Montreal Gulf refinery in 1986 did not and will not lead to problems with refining capacity in Quebec. Closure of the refinery did not lead to high prices for gasoline or home heating oil. As my hon. colleague has pointed out to the House, the rationalization of the industry in the middle of this decade did not create problems. On the contrary, conditions have improved.
After the Gulf closure, refining capacity, in fact, was close to being on balance with internal oil product requirements, and the province even developed a small surplus capacity as Quebec oil consumption continued to fall. This, of course, was directly due-and I must give credit where it is due-to the former Government's off-oil and conservation programs which

March 1, 1988
Montreal Gulf Refinery
we have continued. The fortunate fact remains, however, that Quebec has continued to enjoy a state of surplus capacity since the refinery closure.
My hon. colleague, the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), noted earlier that the closure had no effect whatsoever on the price of gasoline and home heating oil in Quebec. Gasoline prices, after deducting provincial taxes, are within five cents of the Canadian average. Home heating oil prices, with or without Quebec's provincial tax, are significantly below those in Toronto and Maritime cities.
The situation with independent retailers has improved immensely. The number of outlets operated by independents climbed from 256 in December, 1984, to 331 in 1988. The independents' market share also increased. In Montreal their share of retail motor gasoline sales rose from 13.4 per cent at the end of 1984 to 16.7 per cent in early 1988. This shows that consumers in Quebec have been well served and should continue to enjoy the benefits of free market prices and the competition which dictates oil product price levels.
The industry itself has also acted in a responsible manner in utilizing the components of the former Gulf refinery. Lavalin bought and recommissioned the Gulf facilities to produce petrochemicals. Bitumen bought the asphalt plant and resumed asphalt operations. Together with Shell's new catalytic cracker in Montreal and Petro-Canada's total residual oil "cat-cracking" unit, it is evident that the industry in Quebec, like the Government of Canada, is committed to efficiency and flexibility. They are well positioned to adapt to changing market conditions from which both consumers and industry can benefit.
You have the facts, Madam Speaker, on the healthy situation in Quebec, but there is another related area which is sometimes misunderstood when talking about Quebec's energy situation, that is, the question of security of supply. What would happen if Quebec's supplies were disrupted? Although this event is unlikely, it would not be prudent to dismiss completely the possibility of a short-term disruption. Ample surplus refining capacity exists in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces to meet any temporary interruption in Quebec supplies. Aside from Quebec's surplus capacity of 42,000 barrels a day in 1986, the Atlantic provinces enjoyed a surplus of 85,000 barrels and Ontario a surplus of 124,000 barrels.
Other contingency plans could also be implemented immediately, such as accelerated use of existing stocks. These inventories at the refinery and wholesale levels could be replenished within a few days using rail or truck deliveries from adjacent provinces. In addition, stocks could be imported from the United States and Europe in a week or two. The impact of a short-term supply disruption of inventories at the retail level would probably be marginal, if any. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the industry, if ever faced with higher than average depletion rates from its storage facilities, would take the necessary corrective action to avert any supply tightness at the retail level.
Although a temporary supply rupture would result in a mild price hike, little likelihood exists of consumers going without oil. Suppliers will incur almost any cost to ensure that customers are not lost because of a temporary slow-down of product delivery.
In addition, the reduction in refinery capacity due to equipment failure or operating problems can also be off set by the ability of refineries to operate in excess of their rated capacities for sustained periods. In western Canada, for example, refineries have often run at 103 to 120 per cent of rated capacity for several months during periods of refinery expansions and additions.
It is clear to me that, in view of the available alternatives to meet supply contingencies, maintenance of surplus refinery capacity in Quebec is an unnecessary and expensive insurance premium.
The Government's contingency plans are not limited to domestic disruption. Canada's membership in the International Energy Agency, an autonomous organization within the organization of economic co-operation and development, further enhances the collective energy and economic security of Canada and its major trading partners. The 21 member participating countries have agreed to an emergency oil sharing system and to reduce dependence on oil imports through conservation, energy research and development, and the development of alternative energy sources.
The International Energy Agency is committed to determining requirements for an embargo on one or more IEA member countries and minimizing the adverse economic impacts arising from an international oil supply disruption.
Member countries are asked to maintain emergency reserves equal to 90 days of net imports-from which Canada is exempt, being a net exporter-to have ready emergency programs which would reduce consumption by at least 7 per cent, and to participate in the equitable sharing of available supplies.
In addition, Madam Speaker, Canada actively participates in an allocation supply test conducted by all IEA member countries every three years. The sixth such international test, called AST6, will be conducted from October 1 to November 30 of this year. The exercise tests the supply sharing and allocation mechanisms of each member country to ensure that each member can react quickly, efficiently, and judiciously in an international emergency.
The test scenario asks each country to establish, first, its domestic needs, and then to determine what it can give up for those countries that have less supply. Each country cuts back equally and shares equitably the available surplus. The worst case international scenario, for example, a total cut-off from Middle East sources, would precipitate no more than a 10 per cent depletion in supply. I submit, therefore, to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that Quebec enjoys an enviable position in terms of its energy security. Quebec's
March 1, 1988

excess refining capacity, its lower dependence on oil and oil products compared with neighbouring provinces, its abundant hydro electrical and alternative energy sources, and its proximity to neighbouring supplies rule out any major inconvenience to consumers in times of a short or even longterm supply disruption, either domestic or international.
The partnership that Canada enjoys with the International Energy Agency offers protection on the international level that cannot be matched by any other group of oil consuming countries. These are just a few of the reasons why the motion by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie to intervene in the matter of the Montreal Gulf Refinery is in fact a nonissue and should, without question, be defeated.
The Liberals adopted policies that demanded correction by the new Government in 1984 and 1985. The adjustments in the Western and Atlantic accords and the rationalization which continues in the industry will be a benefit to all Canadians.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Madam Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Saint-Leonard- Anjou in East Montreal, I wish to take part in this debate in view of its great importance for my region. First, I would like to congratulate my Hon. colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who has been fighting quite hard for a number of years and who was able to get results on quite a few occasions. At the same time, Madam Speaker, as my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie mentioned, it is regrettable, not so much that Ministers from East Montreal and Parliamentary Secretaries are absent today, but that the only Government Member to take part in such an important debate would be a Member from West Montreal, and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) for taking part in this debate on behalf of the Government, even though he represents Western Montreal. Sadly enough, Madam Speaker, the Members from East Montreal are not here for this debate to defend their constituents.
Of course, we heard from the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), who is quite familiar with gasoline. Before entering politics, he represented service station operators-


Vincent Della Noce: On a gratuitous basis.


Alfonso Gagliano: 1 am not interested in knowing whether it was on a gratuitous basis or with pay, but he represented service station operators, and 1 remember seeing him on television taking part in big debates on this issue-


An Hon. Member:: No tax.


Alfonso Gagliano: -asking that gasoline not be taxed, and so on. The Hon. Member told us this afternoon that gasoline prices have gone down since the election of the Conservative Government, but he forgets that this is an international phenomenon. Gasoline prices have gone down, but he forgot that the Conservative Government has increased the tax on gasoline by 23 per cent. Without this increase of 23 per cent,
Montreal Gulf Refinery
since the price has gone down, it could be lower still. I hope that my colleague will correct this-


Vincent Della Noce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) on a point of order.


Vincent Della Noce: My colleague is perhaps not aware of the energy policy under the Liberal Government. If prices have gone down, it is because we at least had the courage to change this policy and to align Canadian prices on world prices. 1 just wanted to put things in their proper perspective, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Rossi:: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that this is a debate and not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: I simply wish to point out that this is not a point of order, and that the Hon. Member is taking up the time allotted to my colleague for nothing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can assure the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) that I was about to intervene, but that I thought it wiser to wait and see what the Hon. Member had to say before interrupting him. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Indeed, Madam Speaker, four Members from Montreal East are here to defend their region and they are all Liberals.
I should like to follow-up on what the NDP Member said a while ago when he referred to the Quebec issue. He may have forgotten about the frigate matter but it occured in Quebec City and, in order to win votes, in a demonstration of NDP opportunism, he announced that he was prepared to cancel the New Brunswick contracts, and his Leader had to come to Montreal to contredict him. So we have witnessed here again tonight another demonstration of NPD election opportunism.
Madam Speaker, the problems which Montreal East is facing are quite serious. It is a fairly industrialized area which, notwithstanding the current crisis, is faced again with serious problems, and it is sad to see when we realize the enormous difference between the amounts announced by the Tory Government not so long ago and those announced by the Provincial Government and the City of Montreal. Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, that the Quebec Government indicated its intention to invest $105 million in the Montreal East area, the City of Montreal $90 million, and the Federal Government a measly $37 million! After all the studies commissioned by the Federal Government with great fanfare it announced the meagre sum of $37 million and no preretirement policy. What will happen to this area? In this heavy industry, a great many employees are 45, 50 and even 55 years

March 1, 1988
Adjournment Debate
of age. What will happen to these employees who have lost their jobs because of the Tory policies and who will have no possibility of getting pre-retirement benefits.
I should like to emphasize here that it did not announce any pre-retirement program for Montreal East, but not so long ago, in August 1986, it did cancel the pre-retirement program in the footwear and textile industies. If memory serves this program was abolished in August 1986. Today, we are still waiting for replacement programs. In the announcement made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, there was no pre-retirement programs to help all these employees who have lost their jobs as a result of the recession of this Tory Government bad policies, and under different circumstances, to all those who cannot take an early retirement... Today, they have run out of unemployment insurance benefits and now they are only entitled to welfare benefits. It's unbelievable how a Government can fail to recognize its responsibilities to its own people.
Of course, there are definitely other matters which are important to Eastern Montreal! Earlier, my colleague the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) referred to the closing of refineries. He referred to the fact that under a Liberal Government, several refineries were closed. What did he forget to say, Madam Speaker? He forgot to say that when Texaco and other companies decided to close their refineries, it was their own decision. In the case of Ultramar, the Government had an option, it could have decided to intervene to help the sale between Ultramar and Gaz Metropolitan. On the contrary, the Governement did its utmost to prevent that sale.
Well, Madam Speaker, there is now an issue under consideration in Montreal East and it could be quite important, that is Soligaz. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of Energy in Quebec, Mr. Ciacca, who has shown leadership in the matter and also to the member for Lafontaine in Montreal East who has become involved in the matter. Such is the role which a member of Parliament in co-operation with ministers, can play to bring the matter to a successful outcome and give some hope to workers so that their region may enjoy some economic development and create jobs. I hope that as far as Soligaz is concerned, the federal Government will play an active part and that citizens in Montreal East can hope to see that industrial and economic sector given a new impetus. I realize that I have only a minute and a half left and I would like to end my comments, Madam Speaker, to allow members of the Government and all other members to pass the motion of my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) whom I congratulate for his outstanding contribution since he has succeeded on several occasions in making the Government budget.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, the Quebec market for petroleum products is in constant evolution, just like the world market for similar products. I do not think this is something new, especially now that we have just concluded a very healthy free trade agreement with the
Americans. Markets are bound to become ever more diversified.
Madam Speaker, you know that Quebec is a leader when it comes to innovating, when it comes to new technology or know-how. It has demonstrated that in the past and will continue to do so.
The oil market has been declining ever since it peaked so high in the early 1980s, a time when we were victims of unstable markets over which we had no control. But since then Canadians-and Quebecers in particular-turned to their own source of energy, namely electricity. This is the kind of energy which we can control right here and whose economic fallout stays within our own borders. Quebecers were aware of these facts and the federal Government encouraged them to change their approach to energy consumption through grants to help them switch to electricity and even natural gas, so it was only logical that the oil market would shrink. Quebec . ..


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-THE PROMOTION OF BILINGUALISM AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES-ROLE OF GOVERNMENT/COMM1TMENT OF CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Madam Speaker, on February 23, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the division in his party on Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada.
First, I should point out that this Bill is now before Parliament and that, up to date, it has been the subject of a very short debate. The only leader of a political party to speak in this debate has been the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), who spoke on February 9, and I wish to congratulate him on his intervention, especially as he was Minister of Justice when the original Act was passed in 1969, and, in this capacity, be piloted the initial version of the Official Languages Act.
He is the only party leader to have spoken in the current debate in support of this very important piece of legislation.
I would like to remind the House of what he said at the time:
March 1, 1988

-I believe that now the time is right to proceed to consolidate and enhance the Official Languages Act. Now is the time to weave in the many advances made since 1969 to keep the Act abreast of a changing mood and a positive tolerance in Canada. Therefore, the time is right.
The Leader of the Opposition also said, and I quote:
We cannot proclaim equality and then simply let it happen by accident. We must adjust our laws to accepted constitutional principles. The laws of this country must accord with the Constitution. That is a primary impetus behind bringing this law up to date.
One of the reasons why we Liberals support this Bill is that it is part of a very long tradition of our party. We introduced the 1969 legislation and we naturally observed what happened between 1969 and 1984. We were the instigators of the statement by the House of Commons in 1973 and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, and under the able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), we supported the work of the Joint Committee on Official Languages between 1980 and 1984.
The Liberal Party has always considered bilingualism to be the corner stone of our electoral and political programs.
I must say that the position of the Conservative Party has changed over the years. I recognize that more and more Members of the Conservative Party accept and recognize the importance of bilinguism in Canada. There are quite a few Members representing various areas in this country, whether Quebec, the Maritimes, Ontario and even Western Canada, who can now speak both official languages, and I am quite pleased to say that the Conservative Cabinet is now made up of Anglophone Ministers who can speak French very well.
Unfortunately, there still remains a significant pocket of resistance, the BBC within the Conservative Party. And even if the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister try to minimize this resistance, there is no doubt, as reported in Maclean's, that there are bones of contention. And I quote:
With respect to the language revolt, as Maclean's cited, there is a profound difference of opinion between the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy), who have very strong views, on the one hand, while the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) and the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) have expressed a different point of view.
Probably more eloquently than any other group, the Winnipeg Free Press expressed this division when it stated:
The revisions to Bill C-72 which the anti-bilingual (Tory) caucus asked for this week would make English the language of federal civil service offices in all parts of Canada except New Brunswick and part of Quebec.
The article in the Winnipeg Free Press further stated:
This proposal is insulting to French-speaking people who rightly regard their language as being every bit as good as Mr. McKenzie's and worthy of equal treatment in the federal administration . . .
Adjournment Debate
Language policy for Canada can be discussed in rational terms. Emotion is always present in the debate about clan symbols but the duty of responsible political leaders is to appeal as little as possible to hatred and as much as possible to reason. Proposing to stamp out the use of French in wide sections of the federal public service is such an appeal to communal hostility. The Mulroney Government should make clear in all parts of Canada that it will not for a moment entertain such insulting proposals and will not join in playing the game of clan hatreds.
[ Translation]
It is clear, in my opinion, that the Prime Minister should imitate his predecessor and indicate to the Members of his Party that bilingualism is a fundamental policy of his Party and that, as Mr. Stanfield had refused Mayor Jones as a Conservative candidate, the Prime Minister, faced with the Opposition of a number of his own Members, should clearly indicate to them that they will not be able to be candidates under the Conservative ticket during the next election if they do not support the Government's policy on bilingualism.
I suggest that to act otherwise would not be in the interest of Canadians and would be, on the part of the Leader of the Government, speaking from both sides of his mouth, something I hope he would never do.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Members understands, I am sure, that our Government has reiterated on several occasions its commitment to make the Official Languages Act consistent with the Constitution and to promote both official languages in Canada.
Bill C-72 meets the commitment which our Government made in the 1984 Speech from the Throne and reiterated in the 1986 Speech from the Throne. It is consistent also with our commitment to national reconciliation which ranks first among our priorities.

The Member may also recall that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of our Party, as a brand new Member of Parliament in his maiden address in this House on October 6, 1983 stated:
There is no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that there has been no deviation from that initial speech and those initial remarks. Both the Member opposite and myself have lived through a Government which he served, and preceding Governments. I have been here close to nine years.
One of the real disfavours that can be done in this Chamber is to attempt to use linguistic policy to divide. I simply say to the Member opposite that, by choosing quotes from a particular Member in a particular newspaper or periodical, he is treading dangerously close to the line where he is seeking to use language policy to divide Canada.

March 1, 1988
Adjournment Debate
That is not the perspective of this Government. We think that language policy can be used to unite us, to help us, and to express to all Canadians, be they of French-speaking or English-speaking origin, that they can live in this country, prosper, and experience equality.
It is not particularly helpful to concentrate remarks of that nature on something that might indeed inflame passions and emotions and lead to division. It is much more helpful if all Hon. Members of Parliament work together on the things which unite us and give us hope for the future.
That is the Government's perspective, and that is what we will follow.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-GOVERNMENT FUNDING
[Stage Direction]
AND POLICY/CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23 I raised in the House of Commons my concerns about the funding and policy of the Government of Canada with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This issue is not something new that I have brought to the attention of the Government. I have been bringing the matter to its attention for quite some time.
I was somewhat concerned and disappointed with the Estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Equally so I was concerned and once again expressed the view that the commitment of the Government of Canada to the coalfields in eastern Nova Scotia left a lot to be desired.
It has been clear from the outset that there is a bias against the facilitation of and indeed assistance to the coal industry in my province. Some years ago a former Premier of my province initiated a policy which indicated that Nova Scotians, as their energy policy, would utilize coal from eastern Nova Scotia to produce electricity for their homes and businesses. It has been a difficult task for many workers involved in the coal industry to sustain a reasonable and viable living in order to provide for their families.
Early on in the administration of the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) took it upon himself to initiate a committee to look at the possibility of utilizing Canadian coal in Ontario Hydro. I have asked the Minister repeatedly to include representations from Atlantic Canada, in particular eastern Nova Scotia. To date that request has fallen on deaf ears, and there has been no action from the Government of Canada.
Coal miners in Cape Breton would dearly love to have the opportunity to provide their particular product to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation at a fair and reasonable price. They would also like to have similar opportunities to the ones which seem to be given to coalfields in western Canada in order to supply coal to Ontario Hydro. I would have hoped that the Minister, and in particular the Deputy Prime Minister, would have been able to see the importance of having that particular
matter addressed in a positive way. Instead, that has not been the case.
With regard to the Estimates provided by the Government, no new moneys are being provided to the coal industry. What we see is a Government which is following through on a promise and commitment made by my Government in 1984. At that time, because of a tragic fire in the coalfields, a coal mine went out of existence, namely, No. 26 Colliery. My Government committed in excess of $200 million for what is known as the "Lingan Phalen".
We do not see any new commitments. We do not see any new moneys whatsoever in the Estimates for this year or for last year for the expansion of the coal industry on the Island of Cape Breton. It is a cornerstone industry, not only of Cape Breton Island, but of the Province of Nova Scotia. It is Nova Scotia's largest employer. It provides an economic spin-off second to none in the Atlantic region.
We have a Government which does not want to commit itself to the expansion of the coal industry. The idea that miners are supposed to go a mile or two underneath the ground, seven miles out underneath the ocean floor and merely reap the product from underground, take it out, ship it domestically or abroad, must come to an end. A new thinking, a new approach must be put in place. They have to get that product and they have to redefine the product in Nova Scotia in order to find more jobs so that it will be environmentally acceptable domestically as well as internationally.
In the Estimates there is no new money, none whatsoever to address that fundamental concern that all of us have in Cape Breton about our cornerstone industry. Union representatives, time after time after time, have impressed upon local provincial and national authorities that a clear unequivocal commitment was needed for our coal industry. The Estimates do not provide that, Madam Speaker.
Probably weeks prior to a federal election we will have the Minister responsible roll into the island of Cape Breton with a piece of paper saying "Now we are committed to the coal industry", and announce expenditures that may take place years and years ahead. But those expenditures are not in the Estimates, Madam Speaker, nor were they in last year's Estimates as to what the Government believes and where it wants to take the coal industry. It leaves many in my constituency, and certainly within the coal industry, suspicious, apprehensive and concerned about the future of that industry.
I say that with great sincerity for we have witnessed in recent years the gutting of in excess of 600 jobs in the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That is a very serious matter.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary today will give us more information with regard to new dollars for the expansion of the coal industry in a variety of ways, many of which he already knows because he has heard me announce them. I hope he addresses the issue of why we in eastern Nova Scotia cannot
March 1, 1988

be part and parcel of the committee which was struck by the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Member's comments, of course, are completely unfounded but, I might add, typically predictable.
The simple fact is that under this Government, DEVCO has just completed what was described in the Cape Breton Post as "the most ambitious capital development program in DEVCO's history". The Member has said that if this Government is committed to Cape Breton's coal industry, it should put its money where its mouth is. Well, how about the S218.4 million level of that concern? That is what we have invested in the development of the Phalen Colliery and the expansion of the Victoria Junction wash station. This, I might add, was done on time and within budget. For that, Cape Breton workers can take due congratulations.
If the Hon. Member were to look at normal ongoing capital expenditures in isolation of these major projects, he would see-and he knows-that DEVCO's capital spending is forecast to increase by more than 17 per cent this year, to $43.1 million. At the same time, DEVCO expects the coming year to be the best in its history with coal production approaching a record four million tonnes. Several daily production records have already been set in the first two months of 1988.
The Hon. Member was also critical of the level of funding directed toward research and development of new coal technology. Again, the Member finds it expedient to criticize success. Our commitment to Carbogel and related technologies is firm, and DEVCO, already acknowledged as a world leader, will continue to refine and develop this technology at a rate of about $2.6 million a year in each of the next two years at least.
The Government is behind the people of Cape Breton, their coal industry and their general economy like no government before it. The Member says we should put our money where our mouth is. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, there is $218 million for a major development at DEVCO; $110 million for Sysco modernization; $5 million to date on Carbogel and millions under the Cape Breton initiative. To date, projects under Enterprise Cape Breton have created over 2,000 jobs and there are more on the way. Cape Breton's labour force has increased by nearly 4,000. Industrial and commercial construction is up substantially for three years in a row. What about Clearwater lobsters, Highland Breweries, Multiflex Inventions, Magna, Cape Breton Mold, Nova Smolt, Highland Fisheries and many others? The Government has more than put its money where its mouth is in Cape Breton. The Hon. Member had better watch it because we are liable to keep right on doing it.
Adjournment Debate


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ACID RAIN-PLAN TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I do not know what it is like at your home. As you know, I have not been over to visit. However, if you came to visit my house, you would find that I have two really magnificent maple trees on the front lawn of my house.
I do not want you to get the impression that those are the only trees that I have around my home because I have a lot of them. I have some beautiful spruce trees, a sumac tree and cedar trees. We used to have an ash tree and an elm tree before they died and had to be taken down. We have a lot of trees around our home, but the two that 1 am really proud of, the trees I have a real feeling for, are these two magnificent maple trees.
My house is on a corner, the corner of McRae Drive and Hanna Road. One of these maple trees is on the front lawn on the McRae Drive side of the house right in front of our big living-room bay window. This is a wonderful tree. The house was built in about 1937 and the tree has probably been there for about that long. It has a lot of character. It has a bit of a lean, of course. There are squirrels living in that tree and it is just a wonderful tree.
On the Hanna Road side of our house, up in front of one of the bedrooms, there is another tree. That tree has not been there for quite as long, but it is a big, mature tree as well. I really have a lot of feeling for those trees, but both trees have a problem.
Every year in the spring, the leaves burst out and they mature, but around the beginning of July recently, those leaves have started to shrivel up and die. After they shrivel up and die, they fall off. They look terrible, the trees look terrible and it is a real tragedy.
I wonder to myself what is the cause of what is happening to those trees. Some people say it is acid rain. That may very well be the case, I am not sure. I have a neighbour down the street, Jim Hannah, who is a tree lover. He tells me that my trees and perhaps hundreds and maybe even thousands of others in our neighbourhood will die. He cannot say for sure that the reason is acid rain, but that is a good probability.
Even if it is not acid rain that is causing the leaves on my trees to shrivel up and apparently die, we know that acid rain has to be stopped. It is our job and the Government's job to stop acid rain because that is what the people of this country expect us to do.
I know as well that for the first time in the history of Canada, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has put acid rain on the agenda as a top priority in discussions with the United States and has made an enormous effort to make progress in having the Americans reduce their acid rain emissions. This is

March 1, 1988
Adjournment Debate
the first time that this effort has been put forward by a Canadian Prime Minister.
We know as well that we simply cannot force the Americans to cut acid rain emissions. The United States is a free and independent country. We are not going to go to war with the Americans and start shooting at them. Some people think we would not be able to beat them anyway. Regardless, we know that if the Americans will not agree to cut their acid rain emissions, we will not be able to do it for them and we will not be able to force them to do it.
At the same time, we have been trying to cut domestic acid rain emissions. We have agreements with all the eastern provinces to cut acid rain emissions by some 50 per cent by 1994. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are putting our money where our mouth is. There is a commitment of some $335 million on the part of the Government to help reduce acid rain emissions domestically here in Canada.
[DOT] <1825)
Now the U.S. comes along and says that is not a real commitment to cut acid rain emissions in Canada by 50 per cent. It is only 35 per cent. On top of that The Toronto Star has agreed with them editorially and says the Government is trying to mislead us. I think that is a bunch of baloney. You know and I know that the U.S. is always trying one way or another to weasel out of its commitment to cut acid rain. As far as The Toronto Star is concerned, this Government could raise the old age pension 1,000 per cent or 1 million per cent and we would still be criticized. I just hope its readers take those criticisms with a grain of salt.
It does not matter to me or to you, and 1 know it does not matter to the Parliamentary Secretary, what the Americans think or, for that matter, whether The Toronto Star agrees with them or not on this issue. However, it does matter to us what is going to happen to my maple trees. I want to hear tonight from the Parliamentary Secretary what she and her Minister and the Government is going to do to save my maple trees.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I thought the Hon. Member was advertising the sale of his house, but I know he wants to remain in the great riding of York East. It was a great introduction to his question which we wish to respond to in a more comprehensive way.
Canada set a clear, straightforward objective of solving this problem of damage caused by acid rain. To protect the Canadian environment, acid fall-out in all vulnerable areas must be reduced to less than 20 kilograms per hectare per year. We have found that damage occurs when the acid fallout is above this number. We also have evidence that when acid fall-out drops below this threshold, recovery of the
environment starts to take place. I visited the University of Toronto yesterday and its Environmental Studies Institute, and indeed they are finding some evidence in the Sudbury area of recovery starting to take place.
We have gone through the calculations to tell us how many tonnes of sulphur dioxide can be released into the atmosphere and from what areas in order to achieve the 20 kilogram per hectare objective. We have concluded two things. First, total annual sulphur dioxide emissions from the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border eastward must be reduced to 2.3 million tonnes, or about 50 per cent of the emissions allowed in 1980. Second, the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the U.S. into eastern Canada must be reduced by about two million tonnes per year. Again, about 50 per cent of the 1980 level.
Canada is well on the way to delivering what it has to. More than 90 per cent of the emission reductions required to get down to the 2.3 million tonne level are in regulatory or program form and have been formally ratified in federal-provincial agreements. All seven eastern provinces have now signed agreements. That is a great credit to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), indeed to our Government. Under the program, the necessary emission reductions will be achieved by 1994 at the latest. Currently, eastern Canadian sulphur dioxide emissions are down to about 2.8 million tonnes.
We know that Canadian actions alone cannot solve the acid rain problem. For this reason we have been pressing the U.S. administration to negotiate a bilateral accord with specific emission control targets and schedules to reduce the transboundary flow of acid rain pollutants to acceptable levels. Canada's objective is based on sound scientific information and existing principles and obligations under international law. Canada recognizes that how the United States goes about reducing its transboundary pollution flow to 2 million tonnes is its business. Canada's legitimate interest is in the extent to which transboundary pollution flows are and will be reduced. Canada will judge all U.S. initiatives against this yardstick.
1 welcome the opportunity to put on the record once again the Government's outstanding achievement in having federal-provincial agreements now in place in order to accomplish our goals in the reduction of sulphur emissions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 2, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers