1988-03-14

Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, today we join a quarter of the world's people in observing Commonwealth Day. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has been very active in the Commonwealth over the past year. Last October we hosted the heads of Government meeting in Vancouver. Last month the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) chaired the first meeting of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa, created at Vancouver.
Canada continues to be one of the strongest supporters of the Commonwealth. It has given us easy, privileged access to a large group of Third World countries, all of whom were, like Canada, once members of the British Empire. Our Commonwealth experience has provided inspiration for Canada to seek parallel institutions to cement our ties with the Frenchspeaking world. That experience was part of the reason we hosted the Francophone Summit last year in Quebec City.
The Vancouver meeting of the heads of Government of the Commonwealth reviewed the multi-faceted activities of the organization. It addressed major international political and economic issues ranging from Third World debt, to the status of women in society, to the threat to low-lying states from rising water levels.
Canadian Development Assistance, a major dimension of our foreign policy and international identity, has its roots in the Colombo plan of the early 1950s. Today, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, CFTC, provides technical assistance to all parts of the developing Commonwealth.
The fund is virtually unique in that almost all members contribute, and it makes maximum use of experts from developing countries. Canada is the single largest donor to the CFTC, providing approximately $17.5 million in 1987-88, well over one-third of its total resources.
As the meeting in Vancouver demonstrated, the Commonwealth not only consults on major world issues but takes concerted action. The meeting launched three important initiatives.
First, it adopted a new plan of action for southern Africa including assistance to the Front Line States and Mozambique. A committee of eight foreign ministers was established, chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was created to provided impetus and guidance in the Commonwealth's struggle against apartheid in South Africa. It has already proved to be a valuable forum in responding to South Africa's recent restrictive actions against opposition groups.
Second, it issued a declaration on world trade to encourage a more liberalized global trading system and reinforce the current round of multilateral trade negotiations. Canada also wrote off the official debt of the poorest Commonwealth African countries.
Third, it endorsed an imaginative scheme for Commonwealth collaboration in distance education based on a Canadian initiative to promote the exchange of information, training, technical assistance and research in the application of distance education techniques at post secondary and vocational levels in the developing Commonwealth countries.
These three initiatives illustrate the breadth of the Commonwealth contribution. The organization we honour today, in which we find common ground and purpose with a billion people in countries large and small around the world, is worthy of our enthusiastic and abiding support.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition takes pleasure in joining with the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State for Senior Citizens in his statement celebrating the Commonwealth and its accomplishments in the past and certainly its aspirations for the future. But we would want to take careful note that the Commonwealth at this point in its history faces perhaps its most serious challenge and a serious difficulty. We should not simply celebrate by fond rhetoric or past memories. We should in our rededication apply the principles upon which the Commonwealth has been built and use it as a way of encouraging this Government through its position of leadership in the Commonwealth to continue to press for the kinds of efforts and initiatives to deal with the ever-growing seriousness of the problem in South Africa.

March 14, 1988
Statements by Ministers
Each night we see a further escalation of the conflict of oppression and a denial of all the values to which we adhere. It is for that reason as you know, Mr. Speaker, that our own Party has called clearly for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) to live up to the commitments he made almost two years ago at the United Nations to take a more forceful and dramatic step in dealing with both economic and diplomatic sanctions.
I noted with some interest that on Saturday night in an address the Prime Minister indicated that the Government is now reviewing its position, something we have called for it to do over the last several weeks. We hope the Government will.
We believe the position that Canada occupies in the Commonwealth is an important one. The steps we take in relation to South Africa will obviously have a major influence and impact upon decisions of other countries in the Commonwealth. We recognize, I think, to be candid, that the leadership of Great Britain at the present time takes a different point of view, but this may be the time for us to demonstrate that the new generation of Commonwealth leadership has a different perspective than that espoused by Mrs. Thatcher. We use this occasion of the statement of the Minister to add our voice of urgency and the sense of need for the Government of Canada through the Commonwealth to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the actions of the South African Government are not to be tolerated and that apartheid must come to an end.
The Minister made reference to both aid and trade as a characteristic of the Commonwealth which should be noted and celebrated. I agree with him again in principle but raise questions about the Government's willingness to follow through on it. I take note that trade with many of the countries in the Commonwealth has fallen drastically over the past three years. Trade with African countries has dropped almost 25 per cent. We have not undertaken the kind of multilateral international trade initiatives that would be required to come to grips with our debt problems in a significant way. More important, we should be creative and imaginative in opening up new trade opportunities with Third World countries, many of which are Commonwealth partners.
I think it is important for this House to note just how drastic has been the shrinkage in trade around the world, other than with the United States. I can only conclude it is because of the particular pre-occupation which the Government has with that trading relationship that the others are being ignored.
I would say as well on the issue of aid that again we applaud the objectives but have questions about the practice. The statement made last week by the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) setting out new guidelines for the CIDA programs by the Government of Canada has once again set back even further our intention to raise our foreign aid commitment to 0.7 per cent of GNP. The promise made in the 1984 election has now gone through a successive series of further delays and restraints.
In conclusion, the Commonwealth deserves celebration, but it also deserves clear and forthright action in the area of politics, trade and aid. We would encourage the Government to make better use of the Commonwealth than we believe has been made up to this point in time.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I too would like to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, (Mr. Hees), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and all Members of the House in observing Commonwealth Day.
New Democrats have a long history of support for global multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and the Commonwealth, because we believe these organizations to be the most effective means at our disposal to address global concerns, whether they be economic, social, military or environmental. However, the Commonwealth is unique.
Born out of conquest and colonialism, the Commonwealth has become a model of international co-operation based on shared values that transcend race, religion and culture. In this respect, the Commonwealth is, perhaps more than any other international institution, an example of how one billion diverse people can put aside their differences and, indeed, the sometimes bitter history they share to work together in the pursuit of common goals.
The Minister has outlined some of the many co-operative endeavours of the Commonwealth, such as the Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation, efforts to liberalize trade, debt restructuring, and the list goes on and on. In many of these areas, Canada has become a Commonwealth leader, some even say that Canada has become the Commonwealth leader. This is a testament to our own commitment as a nation to multicul-turalism, tolerance and social justice.
In some areas, however, the Commonwealth has not been as successful as many would like. A case in point is that of South Africa. While the Commonwealth has been one of the sharpest critics of apartheid in South Africa, concrete efforts on the part of the Commonwealth to bring about change in South Africa have been modest. This, of course, is partly due to the very diversity within the Commonwealth that we generally applaud. However, the system of apartheid in South Africa is so abhorrent to the world community, including the Commonwealth, and the prospect of violence is so great, that I call on the Commonwealth to redouble its efforts to bring about meaningful change in South Africa. In this respect, we believe the Canadian Government must provide even greater leadership, both independently and with other Commonwealth countries.
We believe the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the people of the world can put aside differences and work together for a better global future. We also believe the Commonwealth and the world community as a whole can, and should do more in this regard.
March 14, 1988

We are happy to join with all Canadians in observing Commonwealth Day and we look forward to greater cooperation and concerted global action on the part of the Commonwealth in the future.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the twenty-ninth and the thirtieth reports, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


PETITIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition signed by residents of Chatham and St. Thomas, Ontario.
The petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conduct a free trade agreement with the United States and, furthermore, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised, in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations, that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
In view of the fact that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States, the petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject this proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have two duly certified petitions. The first concerns the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines for Canada. The petitioners point out the great danger of accidents while nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships are in Canadian ports and point out that this is a threat both to the environment and to Canadian citizens. They call upon the Government not to purchase these nuclear-powered submarines.
Petitions


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the second petition points out that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in October of 1985, submitted a report to the House recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas under federal jurisdiction. In March of 1986, the Government accepted this report and its recommendations, saying that it would take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibitive ground of discrimination. The Government has yet to introduce significant legislation acting upon these recommendations.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament act to implement the recommendations contained in the report.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam
Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of people dealing with the so-called free trade agreement.
These people say that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government with the Americans will remove the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, not other people, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
They suggest-demand, indeed, and I would agree-that we should have an election soon before we implement this so-called free trade agreement.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling two petitions before this honourable House. The first petition was signed mainly by residents of the province of Quebec. The undersigned state that the Government never received a mandate from the Canadian people to enter into a free trade agreement with the United States, and they want the Government to give Canadians a chance to approve or reject this proposal by calling a general election.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by some 200 residents of the community of Fort Frances in my riding, adding to the more than 1,000 who have now signed petitions on this subject. This petition was signed beginning February 23. It arrived in my office on March 10 and was certified on March 11. It is now being presented on March 14.
Since the Government has committed itself to expediting all such fresh petitions, I would like to present it today with the

March 14, 1988
Order Paper Questions
observation that this petition, petitions against the discriminatory and unfair aspects of the application of the northern residents' tax allowance which, by the operation of the present regulations, simply divides northern Ontario, neighbour between neighbour, on the basis of those who will qualify for this exemption and those who will not qualify. .
Of course, the petitioners pray that all communities in Tier 3 ridings be eligible for the northern residents' tax allowance deduction.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. Both have been certified correct according to Standing Order 106. The first is from residents of northwestern Ontario and expresses concern about the application of the northern residents' tax deduction whereby a number of communities with costs higher than those in the major cities have been excluded from this benefit which is substantial for northern residents, and they call for changes in the rules to allow the non-designated communities to be part of the tax deduction.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents of Saskatchewan. These petitioners are concerned about the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They offer a number of arguments as to why they do not support the deal and they call upon Parliament to dissolve so that the people of Canada can have an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed agreement in a national General Election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, Question no. 266 will be answered today.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Since October, 1984, has the National Capital Commission expended any funds on choosing a new site for the United States embassy and, if so, what are the (a) total amounts spent (b) total administrative costs (c) moneys spent on (i) consultant fees (ii) staff overtime (iii) public hearings?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: As of January 1988:
Total amounts spent	$196,402,38
Total Administrative	$ 18,811.06
(i) Consultant fees	$176,721.32
(ii) Staff overtime	$	870.00(iii)	Public hearings	nil


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial Statement, Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad to have the opportunity to add my thoughts and observations to those of my colleagues from other Parties concerning Bill C-82, the Bill proposing the registration of lobbyists in Canada.
This Bill represents the culmination of a legislative movement that has been fermenting and growing within the House of Commons and, indeed, within Canada for some time now. This movement has seen the introduction in the House of several Private Members' Bills dealing with the registration of lobbyists, principally, of course, presented by members of my Party, including one presented by our Party's spokesman for consumer and corporate affairs, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
Finally, the pressure of public opinion in respect of legislative initiative led the Government to realize that this was a matter of serious concern and import to a large number of Canadians. Consequently, in September of 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the context of a fairly wide-ranging statement on public-sector ethics, announced the Government's intention to have lobbyists registered. I think it is well worth the time to excerpt some of the statements the Prime Minister made in that open letter.
March 14, 1988

Along with instructions to Ministers on the hiring of family members, the conflict of interest post-employment code for public office holders and the experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments, on which the jury is still out since we have only had limited experience of it, the Prime Minister included as point five of his open letter the registration of lobbying activity. In expanding on that theme, he stated that we will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients.
Within the life of the Government there has certainly been bad publicity surrounding the activities of lobbyists. Elowever, let us not forget that in previous Liberal Governments similar activity took place, attracting similar publicity, and justly so, because there were often cases where it was felt that people, for hire or for reward, had undertaken a key role in influencing legislation, its design or structuring programs, their drafting and implementation, and even the timing of regulations in some cases.
My Party is in broad agreement with the legislation the Government has introduced in Bill C-82. We are glad that the time has finally come when Canada will have a regime of registration of lobbyists that will allow Canadians comparable access to the sort of information that our cousins in the U.S. have had for many years; that is, information on who is trying to influence the Government, who is drawing a salary, remuneration or reward for their activities in trying to influence the process of Government, and who is buying the services of these lobbyists. They are known as lobbyists because of the tradition that they operate within the lobbies of this very Chamber. We will know who is paying them and what are their objectives.
First and foremost I think we should say that our Party is quite dubious about the value of the Tier I and Tier II formats that this Bill establishes. We would like to see all lobbyists disgorge the sort of information being demanded from Tier I lobbyists, who we might see as the full-time professional, freelance lobbyists, those who are always up for hire, so to speak, for sale to the highest bidder, compared with the Tier II lobbyists who are largely those instructed by their employers, professional associations, corporate business and trade associations, to seek not only specific legislative initiatives but also to broadly influence the climate of opinion, the focus of debate, the movement and interplay of ideas within Government and Parliament. Some of those lobbyists would have the facility, indeed, in some cases to be more influential than those who move from client to client or who, like many of the leading lobbying firms, have a number of clients on retainer and draw specific fees for specific assignments. Canadians are entitled to know who is doing what, who they are doing it for, who they are talking to, and how much money is changing hands on account of this lobbying.
Lobbying, of course, is a practice which has always been carried on, but in recent years it has become professionalized,
Lobbyists Registration Act
commercialized, and much more organized as well as much more recognized. Some 40 or 50 years ago people might undertake to act for some nominal recognition or compensation by way of intermediary in an age when communications were much less developed. When contact on a direct basis with a Member of Parliament or a member of the Government was certainly much more difficult than it is now, people might undertake to meet the Minister or Member of Parliament or even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) within the lobby of the House and raise the concern of an individual or the legislative request of a group or body. Now, despite the fact that it is surely easier than it ever has been for the ordinary citizen, company, trade union or association, provincial Government or professional agency to contact members of the Government or organizations within our Parliament, we have this professionalization, and perhaps that is a word I am using a little loosely, but certainly this commercialization of the lobbying process which seems to have no end to it, which seems to be continually growing.
It was alleged back in 1985, and this may have something to do with the introduction of this legislation, that a company which has already been named here accepted a commission of some $2,000 to arrange a meeting between a fisherman and the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This is an example, surely, of the type of lobbying which really should be eliminated, along with a recognition that there are indeed legitimate types of lobbying and very legitimate lobbying objectives.
It seems that most lobbying occurs in secrecy. That is one of the problems this Bill is designed to address. Academic literature indicates that the bureaucracy is the subject of roughly 40 per cent of lobbying activity, and Canadians have to examine whether or not that constitutes an undercutting of the role of Parliament in the policy process. To the extent that Members of Parliament are lobbied, they are often not aware of the role of the individual who makes the contact as a paid lobbyist on a commercial basis. They are often not informed or not aware as to how representative the client group doing the lobbying indeed is.
The American experience is instructive, not simply because of the common language we use or indeed the many similarities between our cultures and our geographic proximity. It is instructive because it is the best documented, the most obvious, and arguably the most widespread example of the lobbying phenomena that the world affords. To quote a former American Senator, Mr. Abraham Ribicoff, in 1975 he said that to protect the democratic process itself, and assure public confidence in it, the lobbyist must work in the open. His work must not be cloaked in secrecy. Secrecy inevitably spreads public suspicion. That has been the objective of the NDP in putting forward Bills on this topic and in addressing this Bill. Lobbying activity should be brought out in the open.
However, I think we must emphasize that a lobby registry is not aimed at policing or restricting access to Government, but merely to make sure those interested in knowing the nature of this access can have access to the information and can know

March 14, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
the lines along which paid commercial lobbying within the country is proceeding.
We have had one comprehensive study of lobbying which proposed a model for a lobby registry. I am talking of course of the unanimous report submitted in 1987 by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which studied the issue for approximately one year. It visited lobbying registries in various parts of the U.S., including Washington and Sacramento.
We also have to look at indirect lobbying. Members of Parliament, I am sure all of us, will be familiar with the recent case where apparently original letters were distributed very widely by the tobacco companies or their proxies so that these could be signed by individuals and submitted to give the appearance of a mass campaign. The literary style, the use of a limited number of type faces, the structure and phrasing and contextualization of the return addresses, and indeed the addresses these were sent to, soon gave away this mass mailing lobbying campaign. I think we should be looking very hard at the nature of those campaigns and whether they constitute a form of lobbying.
The proposed lobby registry could be given much sharper teeth with which to enforce this legislation. It is conceivable that the fines provided for in the legislation, because of the potential profit in the business, could simply be seen as a form of toll-gating to stay in the game. It is conceivable, after all, that lobbying firms could be organized on a partnership basis, could form and reform in order to get around any strictures put on them. Although, of course, a challenge on the basis of freedom of expression is foreseeable, the Government has to protect the integrity of the governmental and democratic processes, complex as these have become.
Another defect that we see is the lack of power for the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to investigate the information which he or she is given. We believe that the lack of investigatory power would be a handicap and that the ADRG should have the opportunity to review and verify any information that is given.
We have often heard opposition to new legislative initiatives on the grounds of the bureaucracy that would be created by them. I am glad to say that it appears, from the United States experience, that the operation of a lobby registry should not be a major imposition upon the bureaucracy and should not lead to the creation of a large bureaucratic machine. Apparently the American lobby registry in Washington, handling information for over 10,000 lobbyists, is staffed by only three people, which gives us a good idea of what can be done in the computer age.
As I have said previously, this Bill does not provide for prohibition of commercial lobbying, nor should it. However, there is one form of commercial lobbying at which I think we should look very hard to determine whether we want to see it
continued; that is, lobbying on the basis of contingency fee whereby if the lobbyist is successful in obtaining a certain conclusion the fee will be larger than if the lobbyist is unsuccessful, in which case the lobbyist may get no fee.
It is to be noted that within our legal system contingency fees are not permitted on that basis and we think they should be prohibited in the practice of lobbying as well.
We see this piece of legislation providing for the registration of lobbyists as essential, not only in buttressing the integrity of the democratic and governmental process but also in allowing the continuance of the legitimate activities of commercial lobbyists and the legitimate paid activities that they will undertake.
With regard to structuring the lobbying legislation, there is one final thing that I would like to note; that is, once a lobbying registration system is in use it appears that there is very little pressure from the lobbying industry or lobbying community, if you like, to drop the system. It appears that it is something to which the industry is well able to adapt, that given the lighter public scrutiny this is in some cases, and in the cases of the longest established operations, seen as a benefit in that there is no longer a need for the light of suspicion to be cast on them when the information is freely, publicly, and openly available as to who their clients are, what objectives they are seeking, and who they are influencing or seeking to influence within the Government.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we see faults and deficiencies within this piece of legislation, but we see it as legislation which Canada needs in order to protect the integrity of the process of government and the operations of democracy in an era when lobbying is becoming far more prevalent, far more pervasive and, we may opine, far more successful.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I too want to avail myself of this opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-82.1 join with my colleague who has just spoken in indicating that we in the Liberal Party as well endorse Bill C-82 in principle. Indeed, it is a giant step in the right direction to begin the lobbying process.
Veteran Members of this House, certainly those with more experience than I, will recall that over the last few decades various private Members in all three Parties have made attempts to see legislation pass this House requiring the registration of lobbyists. Indeed, this Bill is long overdue.
Since I have some concerns about this Bill, and in order that my comments not be misunderstood, let me say that the Liberal Party is prepared to have this Bill passed at this stage of debate in order for it to go to committee. It is our hope that in committee some improvements can be made to Bill C-82 by all-Party consensus. It is my understanding, although I was not a member of the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which worked on this, that indeed all three Parties worked well to produce the recommendations out of which flowed the legislation that is now before us.
March 14, 1988

We do have some problems with the Bill. As has been said by earlier speakers, the Bill sets up two categories of lobbyists. Basically I do not have much problem with one of the categories. I am not one of those who believes that every single person who wants to make representations to government on behalf of a particular employee group or association which they represent must, in massive detail, provide information to a registry in Ottawa. However, with regard to the registration of lobbyists of the kind which are best personified by the Frank Moores operation in Ottawa, which have evolved over the last couple of years, and indeed there are others, I think this Bill does not go far enough.
Let me begin by talking about the registration process for lobbyists contained in this Bill. Most Canadians who are watching this debate are saying that it is a good thing to make lobbyists register, that the people who traditionally operate in the shadowed, smokey back rooms will now have to come out into the full glaring light of day and register. They are saying that that is a good thing.
Canadians should know that there is no provision in the Bill that lobbyists register who they are making contact with and on whose behalf. There is no provision in the Bill to give the designated registrar the authority to check the information that is being registered. In other words, it is an act of faith. Information is provided and there is no mechanism or authority in this Bill to check the information which is being registered.
There is a larger problem. The Bill recommends that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General be the authority empowered to hold this information, be the registrar for lobbyists. That is a very impressive sounding title and Canadians should be asking who is the Assistant Deputy Registrar General. Is it someone like the Auditor General, an independent officer of Parliament who is not directly under the direction or authority of the Government or the Opposition? Is that who the Assistant Deputy Registrar General is? No, that is not who he is. He is not like the Auditor General.
The Assistant Deputy Registrar General is a civil servant. He is an employee of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His job, indeed his career path, is not independent of the Government, his Minister, or political consideration. His job, his career path, is directly linked, or at least can be directly linked to the happiness or unhappiness of his political masters.
Why am I raising this point about who this authority is going to be?
Canadians will recall that a few months ago the present Assistant Deputy Registrar General stated that certain Conservative Party moneys made available to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were subject to the conflict of interest guidelines and should have been registered. This statement was made on Friday and headlines throughout
Lobbyists Registration Act
Canada were that a Minister of the Crown, in this case the Prime Minister, had not complied with the conflict of interest guidelines. By Monday the Prime Minister produced in the House of Commons a letter by the same Assistant Deputy Registrar General saying that there had been no violation of the conflict of interest guidelines. That rather dramatic conversion did not really upset Members of the House. In fairness to the gentleman involved, perhaps upon reflection he had come to the conclusion that his statements on Friday were ill conceived and, therefore, clarified the matter on Monday.
However, what did upset Parliament and every right thinking Canadian was that, despite repeated requests for a clarification, a briefing or explanation for the ruling of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General on Monday, he refused to give one. When we asked to which clause and which section of the conflict of guidelines we should refer to understand the dramatically different ruling he gave from the one three days earlier, we were met with silence. In the interest of fairness, I personally called this gentleman on the telephone but was merely told that he could not comment.
I was not going to speak on this Bill until I read in the Bill that the authority in whom shall be vested all of the information required under Bill C-82 is the same Assistant Deputy Registrar General. I have a serious problem with the Bill in those circumstances.
I do not question the integrity or the honesty of the gentleman who holds the job. In fairness to him, I suggest that he is in a difficult position because he does not have the protection of an independent, arm's length relationship with the Government like that held by the Auditor General, an ability to be accountable only to Parliament as a whole rather than to any particular political party.
The gentleman who must hold this job is a public servant. According to this Bill, a civil servant is being asked to assume a quasi judicial authority and to exercise a measure of independence. Yet this is made impossible by the fact that he is indeed a public servant who is dependent upon the goodwill of his Minister and the Government that he serves.
Therefore, my first point is that the authority in whom shall reside the information and the responsibility to police this legislation cannot be a public servant, no matter how flamboyant his title. The authority in whom the information required under the lobbying Bill shall reside must be an officer of Parliament who is independent of any consideration to the Government, the Opposition, whether Conservative, New Democratic or Liberal. Only then can Parliament and, more important, the people of Canada be assured that the registration of the information provided and the enforcement of the rules will be above board. I believe this is a matter that Members of the House will want to address and improve when this Bill goes to committee.
There are a number of other fundamental flaws in the Bill that I believe Members of all Parties will want to address,

March 14, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
because I believe there is goodwill among Members of every Party to pass legislation that works well.
There is no provision in the Bill to deal with the question of fees of lobbyists for activities they conduct on behalf of a client. Canadians should be aware of an interesting new wrinkle that has evolved in the last few years with respect to the activities of lobbyists. One originally thought of lobbyists as people who would accept a fee to go to a Minister of the Crown of the government of the day and make one's case as best they could, to make one's views known about a piece of legislation, to request new legislation or amendments to current legislation in an attempt to influence the decision a government might make in a matter of national or public importance. This is quite acceptable, providing those lobbyists are registered.
However, the new practice, which is best personified by the work of the Frank Moores' operation in Ottawa, involves contingency fees. For example, Mr. Moores may tell a client that he will take on a case for $1,000 but, if successful, will then be paid another $10,000. This practice means that not only is there a payment for supposedly professional services to make the case in a lobbying effort, there is an additional payment if that effort is successful. I believe that most Canadians are not aware of this practice and simply think of contingency fees as another Ottawa buzz word. Contingency fees means that one pays the lobbyists for making the case and pays much more if the lobbyist wins the case.
Surely a contingency fee system in which a lobbyist may be paid tenfold his initial fee for successfully making the case on behalf of an individual or corporation is a temptation to be less than forthright in those lobbying efforts. Suddenly, the lobbyist no longer uses all his professional skills for a certain fee. Lobbyists now face the prospect of making substantially more money if their lobbying is successful. I submit that such a system in which substantial amounts can be made-perhaps $500,000 or even $5 million-creates an atmosphere and the potential for corruption, and the exchange of rewards or gifts becomes much more likely. It is not now simply someone doing his best to make a case, but someone who knows that the financial reward is fantastic if he is successful and the temptation to do whatever is necessary to get the right decision will rise dramatically. The whole matter of contingency fees which is being practised, as I say, foremost by the Frank Moores firm, but perhaps by others, is not dealt with in this Bill.
There is another matter of great concern with respect to Bill C-82, at which I think Members, particularly those who made the recommendations out of which flowed Bill C-82, will want to have a very serious look. In essence, the Bill sets up a system in which the only person required to register as a lobbyist is the individual who, for a fee or, in the case I just mentioned, a contingency fee-and that should be made illegal-makes a representation to the Government. That is a lobbyist, someone
who is making a case. That allows a broad group of people to escape having to register as having had a lobbyist in Ottawa. Unless the lobbyist is actually making a case on behalf of a client he is not required to register.
What is the problem, you ask, Madam Speaker? What about the firm which hires a lobbyist not to make a case to the federal Government on its behalf but to merely solicit information? They are not asking for anything to be changed or for a piece of legislation, nor are they asking for an amendment to a decision. They only want information. For example, a real estate speculator hires a lobbyist, giving him a yearly fee. He does not want any lobbying done. That lobbyist, who is now not required to register because he is not making a case for anyone, in the course of his business discovers that an airport is to be built at a particular site or that a new highway is going to be re-routed in a certain way. He gives that information to the real estate firm which promptly goes out and buys all the land in the vicinity, realizing a huge profit on that insider information.
Under the provisions of this Bill, because no representation was made, that lobby effort is not required to be registered. Parliament has no right to know that a particular individual, who made a profit because of access to insider information, was being represented or had a lobbyist acting on his behalf in the nation's capital. The Bill is specifically worded to say that a lobbyist must only report when he is acting in a representative capacity. There is nothing about an advisory capacity. There is nothing in the Bill with respect to a lobbyist who provides insider information, all of which flows from the individuals, groups, departments and directors of Parliament Hill. He is exempt.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, and to Members, that that kind of lobbying, the indirect kind of lobbying, the exchange of information kind of lobbying, is perhaps more potentially susceptible to illegal practices and fantastic profits because of privileged information than is direct lobbying where it is up front. That is another area which I believe the committee has to consider and make amendments.
I said at the beginning that my Party and I support this Bill. We support it because a baby must learn to walk before it can run. This Bill takes us into the process so that we can begin to walk. Certainly, if it is to be a good Bill, there is room, and I hope there is the will, to substantially amend it at committee stage.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, I was following the Member's speech with interest. Would he indicate, beyond what he has already indicated, what further changes he would like made to the Bill?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Madam Speaker, there are a number of other changes I would like to see made to the Bill. First, the Bill does not require, as currently drafted, that there be a record of official contacts. No record whatsoever is required to be kept in the event at a later date of some questioning or some
March 14, 1988

unusual circumstances arising with respect to a particular Government transaction. We are not going to be able to go back in the records to see who was acting for whom and what contacts were made because that is not required in the Bill.
The Bill has no provisions to stop a lobbyist from registering even after that person has been fined or jailed for making false statements. In other words, there is no provision in the Bill to prohibit someone who, having once violated-for that matter, many times-not only the spirit of the legislation but in fact the detail of the legislation, from subsequently registering and acting as a lobbyist. I think that is another matter at which we would want to take a close look. Those are two other areas of concern.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Lewis:
That this House endorses the adoption of the motion, on Monday, March 7, 1988, of the Prime Minister for second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since the motion of the Minister of State for Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) received unanimous consent Friday, and considering comments made by Members of the various Parties in the House, we have a clear indication that the House wishes to consider this motion concerning Bill C-l 13, a motion about which I would normally have serious reservations.

It is a basic rule of the parliamentary system that a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as a judgment of the House. This is quoted in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 150, citation 416.
Western Economic Diversification Act [ Translation]
The Chair certainly does not intend to oppose the will of the House with respect to a procedure it has unanimously decided to follow, but it is my duty to make it quite clear to all Members and to the public watching these proceedings that today's debate on this special motion should not be seen as a precedent for future proceedings in the House.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important Bill for western Canada. I am also appreciative of the fact that this debate today is somewhat unconventional. I think it is important, though, that all sides of the House do agree that we have the opportunity to debate more fully a law which is so important for western Canada.
Our Party is in support of the principle of the Bill. We have long been calling for diversification of the western economy. We are in support of the principle of decentralization of the powers for doing this in western Canada. However, we question the Government's commitment. How seriously is the Government taking the whole question of western diversification? I will be looking more closely at the fact that only $1.2 billion is estimated to be spent on this initiative in the next five years.
From the time of Confederation there have been policies in Canada to encourage regional development. They have been an important part of Canadian politics. Even the Constitution Act of 1867 called for the building of the Intercolonial Railway, which was an important regional development initiative at that time.
John A. Macdonald's national policy, when it was fully developed, had not only the element of a tariff structure to encourage industry formation in central Canada, but it also called for the building of the CPR as a link to the Pacific and the developing of the Pacific coast. As well there was the Dominion Lands Act which looked to the opening up of the Prairies. We had the development of the Crow's Nest rate to help agriculture on the Prairies.
In spite of these initiatives that have been taken from time to time in the last 20 years we have become very much aware of continuing disparities. Eastern Canada suffers from lower wages and from higher rates of unemployment than other parts of Canada. Western Canada has had a boom and bust economy. Indeed, many Members might recall the famous analogy that Tommy Douglas used about Canada being like a cow. He said it was fed in the West, milked in central Canada and God only knows what it is doing in the Maritimes, in eastern Canada.
Patricia Marchak, a UBC economist, has pointed to some of the problems in the economy of British Columbia. She points to our great dependence upon the forest industry. She says that

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
the relative positions of primary metals, metal fabricating, chemicals, printing and publishing, foods, non-metallic minerals and electric products have declined in the last few years. The positions of transportation equipment, non-electric machinery and, of course, petroleum products have improved. Others have remained constant.
She states:
Considering the enormous wealth created in British Columbia during this decade, the expansion of timberlands under production, and the amount of forestry products exported the growth in secondary industries is not impressive.
She also stated:
Signally missing from the regional landscape are firms manufacturing pulpmill machinery, chemicals, and computer equipment: all high-value, technologically advanced equipment and supplies for the pulping sector... Pulpmill machinery and computer equipment, however, are important... Total employment in secondary manufacturing was estimated by Statistics Canada to be 77,000-6 per cent of the labour force.
Relative to the total labour force, workers in metal fabricating and transportation equipment combined were 1 per cent. Chemicals, machinery-industries, electrical products, and non-metallic mineral products-the other sectors that might be expected to generate new employment in a forestry-dependent region-were negligible as employers-
The same is true of consumer products unrelated to forestry. Apart from food and beverages, B.C. does not have a substantial consumer products industry. There are small companies producing textiles, clothing, furniture and fixtures, leather goods, and other, more miscellaneous goods but the vast majority of household goods and personal consumer items purchased are manufactured elsewhere.
Professor Marchak points to the dangers of depending upon a staples economy. She states that the so-called theories of comparative advantage might work to the interests of the companies that are developing the resource and exploiting the resource. If there is an international downturn, then they can take their profits and move them elsewhere. This type of dependence upon single industries, this dependence upon basic resources, has not served the people of western Canada well.
Perhaps this is as good a way as any for us to understand the continuing and growing bitter debate in British Columbia between those people who are concerned about resource extraction and those who are concerned about questions such as environmental protection or land claims. What we have in British Columbia is a great deal of pressure upon a resource base that has been exploited over the last number of years without too much thought for the future. We are now getting back to logging and mining in areas that should never have been logged or mined. These are areas that are ecologically sensitive. They are areas that are sacred and of symbolic as well as economic importance to the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.
Because we have not taken advantage of the wealth that has been created over the past 100 years by the exploitation of the forest industry and the mining industry, which has been largely hived off to other areas, and because we have not diversified, we as a province continue to be highly dependent upon those extractive resources. We are now moving into areas in which there are great social conflicts. Thus it is important
that we have regional development policies that address this type of boom and bust economy in western Canada.
The problems of regional development in western Canada are different from those in Atlantic Canada. The Government recognizes this when it talks about a western economic diversification fund. What we need is economic diversification. Over the past number of years different Governments have tried different approaches to the whole business of economic diversification. In a study that was prepared for the Macdonald Commission by Norie, Simeon and Krasnick, entitled Federalism and the Economic Union of Canada, the authors have summarized the different approaches. They speak of three continuing tensions in the area of the economic development.
First, Canadians have never been able to come up with theories or policies, or even projects, that appeared to work. Policy has staggered from being oriented toward sectors, as in ARDA, to being oriented to area economic development more generally, including adjustment out of the region-that is helping people to move away from depressed areas-to orientation toward growth poles, ADA and DREE. Programs have ranged from adjustment assistance to infrastructure grants, to tax breaks, to direct subsidies, to regionally differentiated investment and employment credits.
Second, we have never settled on the proper relation between federal and provincial responsibilities for regional economic development. Early federal efforts were highly centralized and tended to ignore provincial wishes. During the GDA period almost the reverse was true. The federal Government paid the tab for province building. The pendulum again swung in the opposite direction for a brief period, and today it remains in motion.
Finally, the federal Government has never managed to link its regional development responsibilities satisfactorily with its broader national economic management role. The best manifestation of its failure is the constant rearranging of the federal bureaucracy, first to bring regional interests into a separate department, then to make all departments consider regional implications implicitly, and finally to drift back to the single ministry concept.
So what we have had over the last number of years is a constant shifting from one kind of program to another. Sometimes the shifts have been more apparent than real. Sometimes they have been real shifts. We have moved back and forth between talking about regions to talking about provinces and so on. It remains to be seen whether the initiative that we have in Bill C-113 to establish the western diversification fund will come to grips with these problems representing a long term, sustained commitment to deal with the problems of the needs of the western economy for diversification.
March 14, 1988

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that previous efforts at regional development have not worked and that we cannot simply solve the problem by throwing money at it. However, the federal-provincial task force on regional development assessment, prepared for the First Ministers' Economic Conference last November, pointed out that the resources supplied to regional development over the past 25 years have been small in relative terms. We have not thrown that much money at the problem.
Expenditures for Canada were in the order of 3 per cent of total federal economic expenditures and are now less than that. Greater expenditures could well have had significantly greater results. Regional development efforts in the 1970s were successful in the context of the amount of resources applied to them. In other words, we got what we paid for. Under the new diversification fund we will get what we pay for. If we do not put much money in, we will not get very much out of it.
It has also been shown that the actions of federal line Departments can have a very much greater impact than specific regional development programs because of their greater expenditure base. The frequently expressed negative view of regional development programs is due, to a great extent, to the expectations raised by such programs. Results must be judged on the resources used to achieve them rather than on total needs.
We are concerned that there is a great deal of hype about western diversification and the fact that the Government is decentralizing and establishing an office in Edmonton, as well as regional offices in Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg. There is a build-up of expectation. However, when we look for a commitment of funds, we find that the commitment is not there. The sum of $1.2 billion over five years amounts to some $60 million per year for each of the four western provinces. It is not really very much money.
In 1977 the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that even the highly controversial program of incentive grants to influence companies to locate in the Atlantic area had had modest success. Again I say that we get some return for the money we are prepared to spend, but we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the Government is not prepared to spend money in this area, it cannot expect that there will be significant successes in terms of development.
Since the 1981-82 recession we have seen dramatic growth in the economy of central Canada, particularly that of southern Ontario. The regions of Canada have been much slower in recovering. Indeed, in parts of Canada it would be a mistake to speak of recovery at all. In my area on Vancouver Island the number of unemployed, according to the latest jobless figures, is exactly the same as it was in September, 1984, so we cannot speak of a recovery.
When we look at Bill C-l 13 we are concerned about the lack of a clear government strategy in terms of what it is really
Western Economic Diversification Act
encouraging the western economy to do. It talks about flexibility. Certainly our Party supports the concept of flexibility in the way in which the diversification fund should be applied. As admirable as flexibility is as a goal and a means, it should not be used as justification for lack of a clear policy. We do not see that clear policy in what the Government has announced.
Over the last 3.5 years we have seen an increase in the percentage of DRIE funds going to central Canada and we have seen 47 per cent of all jobs created going to Ontario. The Government seems to be letting the economy drift and is now making a modest effort at diversification, but we do not see the required commitment.
Last summer the New Democratic Party, led by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), released its own paper on economic diversification for the West. I should like to refer to some of the points that we made.
First, we should be adding value to western resources. There are many opportunities for creating new industries and new jobs in upgrading or adding value to our natural resource exports. Of course, a good example of that would be the lumber industry, as well as the petrochemical and food processing sectors.
Second, we should do more to serve the needs of the resource industry. Earlier I referred to Patricia Marchak who pointed out how complex machinery used in our pulp mills, as well as a great deal of machinery used in our mining and logging industries, is not produced in western Canada but comes from abroad. The West is a major user of machinery and equipment, but we do not produce it ourselves. If we developed industries to serve the resource industries in our part of the country, if we developed the kinds of industries which produced pulp mill, logging, and mining equipment, we could hope that in time these industries would not only be serving local markets but would be expanding and developing into important export industries in their own right.
We also need support for the manufacturing industry in the West. The Government promised to increase procurement in the West. Quite frankly it has a shameful record in that regard. If we look at 1981-82, we see that 15.5 per cent of government procurements came from the four western provinces. In 1982-83, that declined to 14.7 per cent. In 198384, it was a disaster as far as the West was concerned; only 9.8 per cent of procurements were in western Canada. They increased to 13.9 per cent in 1984-85, declined in 1985-86 to 12.8 per cent, and declined again in 1986-87 to 11.5 per cent.
The Government says that it will do something about it, but it has not set any targets or goals. If it were really serious about it, it would be prepared to show its commitment by setting out some kind of affirmative action program for procurement in western Canada. It could set targets and say that it would work toward reaching the proper percentage of purchases in western Canada in proportion to the population

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
by a certain time. Instead, there is a vague commitment toward procurement policies despite the sorry record of the Government over the last 3.5 years.
It also talked about creating new industries and jobs. Our study pointed out that some of the historic disadvantages of the West, such as long distances from markets and so on, are disappearing because of the development of new industries and high technology. Here is something important in my own area, an area with great natural scenery and a very attractive climate. We should be building upon that kind of resource in attracting new non-polluting industries.
When we look at the expenses in British Columbia, we have to question whether or not the Government is taking seriously new initiatives, or if it is simply using the $1.2 billion to plug loopholes that should have been met from other departmental expenses.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I would like to follow up his last suggestion of environmentally sensitive and good industries. Surely that is the way of the future. He and I are both from British Columbia and we share a real sensitivity to the environment because it is so good. I am sure all Hon. Members will not like it but I can't resist telling everyone that the tulips are out in my backyard in Vancouver. I have an old convertible and the top is down already. Could the Member follow up about money being spent and how it was spent from departmental funds. Also, could he comment on the kind of future industries that he would like to see in British Columbia.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, first, the kind of industries we would like to see in the future include the high tech sector. The kind of future industries I am looking for for Vancouver Island are those which take advantage of rapid transportation by air that will not be expensive in weight and volume. On that basis, one of our fundamental economic needs is to preserve the environment of Vancouver Island as a good place for people to live and, therefore, as a good place for industries to locate.
With regard to the money that has already been spent, let us look at three expenses the Government took out of the $1.2 billion last year before the fund got fully operational. First was $79 million over five years for South Moresby Park. Members on all sides of the House supported the creation of South Moresby Park. But should that money necessarily have come out of the Western Diversification Fund?
Second, there was $9.5 million for shakes and shingles market development. The shakes and shingles economy of British Columbia was hit by the 35 per cent tariff imposed by our friends in the United States. In co-operation with the shakes and shingles manufacturers, the Western Diversification Fund is putting $9.5 million trying to expand that market again and perhaps find other markets.
What about the $53 million for the salmon enhancement project? It is this program that I want to question because that $53 million will be spent over the next five years. It will be added to $154.3 million spread over five years, money that will come from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the Salmonoid Enhancement Program has been the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. During this last year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) went to the Cabinet Committee on Economic and Regional Development to tap into the policy reserve funds to the tune of some $50 million per year for the next five years. He was not given that money from the policy reserve fund from where it should have come. Instead, money was made available from the Western Diversification Fund. It is less money than the Minister was seeking, and it is just enough to barely maintain the current project levels. It is important funding.
The Salmonoid Enhancement Program is important to British Columbia. But is there some kind of a hoax being perpetrated on us? This money should have come from the regular Estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or from policy reserve funds. Instead, the Government makes a great show of announcing extra funding. It is called new money from the Western Diversification Fund but it is going back into what should have come from a line department. This use of the Western Diversification Fund to meet commitments that should be made from other departments, is, I think, a hoax.
While we support the concept and the principle of this Bill, we have to ask whether or not the Government is really committed. It seems the Government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is in this whole area.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Hon. Member. The so-called free trade agreement with the United States has also to be considered in western diversification and regional growth. There is a body of opinion in British Columbia reflected this weekend in the polls shown in The Vancouver Sun. People do not really understand the free trade agreement, although they think it will go through. Although there tends to be a split, the majority are in favour of it. Interestingly enough, a huge majority feel the Americans will benefit by the deal.
I am concerned that a lot of British Columbians do not understand that we never won what British Columbians hoped we would win in the free trade agreement, namely, secure access to the American market. An economy like British Columbia's is an undiversified economy, really, an export economy of raw materials. We will be giving away control of our energy resources and threatening our sovereignty by it, but we are going to take this leap of faith. We should at least have been given a guarantee of access to the American market for our fish and forest products, mining and so on. I do not think we got that in the deal. In fact, I know we do not have it in the
March 14, 1988

deal because I have read it. Congress can still pass countervailing laws that will do the same thing again as was done to our lumber and shakes and shingles industry. Does the Elon. Member have any comment whether the two are intertwined as I think they are?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I agree 100 per cent with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Not only that, but the western diversification initiative itself along with the regional development program for Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario can be made the subject of controversy over the next five to seven years under this agreement. Canada and the United States have to sit down, bargain and horse trade as to what constitutes an acceptable or unacceptable subsidy. Although from the point of view of western Canada this $1.2 billion is insufficient to help us diversify, in the eyes of the Americans it might seem to be a great deal of money for them to look at as an unjustified subsidy and, therefore, subject to countervail. The Hon. Member is quite right, that we do not have the kind of secure access under the trade agreement that was promised to us by the Prime Minister.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, when the Bill was called this morning again, as you explained it, I was doing some research on the western Canadian economy. I cannot pass up this opportunity to make some comments about a matter so important for the 7.3 million people who live in the West today. First, I would like to comment about the point my friend from Vancouver- Kingsway made on the trade agreement with which I will deal at some length in a moment.
In view of the fact that there is now an election campaign in Manitoba, I wonder if any of my friends from the New Democratic Party know that Manitoba has a payroll tax under the present New Democratic Government. If a payroll is greater than a certain amount, I believe a 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent tax is paid. If my friends from the New Democratic Party could think of one device that is more anti-employment and more harmful to the creation of new jobs in a province, I wish they would tell me. To my knowledge, Manitoba is the only province in Canada which has such a tax. It is the only-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It has a lower unemployment rate than your province.


David Kilgour: I will come to that in a moment. One wonders why the New Democratic Party is at 25 per cent in Manitoba now. I gather it will go lower. One of the reasons for that is that payroll tax which has made it harder for people to create new jobs in Manitoba. I can assure the Hon. Members from the New Democratic Party, as a former Manitoban, that Manitoba has done well in spite of the New Democratic Party's policies, not because of them.


Lloyd Axworthy: And Filmon is going to keep it.
Western Economic Diversification Act


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has made a comment on behalf of the Liberal Party. It has been so long since there has been a Liberal Party in Manitoba that even my family used to belong to it.
The labour force information that came out this morning gives us figures for the various parts of the country. We see, for example, that Oshawa's unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent. Taking a quick look, I see that that is the lowest figure for any city in Canada. Why is that? Is it because of the Auto Pact, the Auto Pact that will be enshrined in the trade agreement? If the United States wanted to cancel the Auto Pact, which it could do with a year's notice, it would have to cancel the entire trade agreement. That is a point that Liberals and New Democrats might contemplate.
In the West, the unemployment rate in Winnipeg is 8.5 per cent in Regina it is 6.2 per cent, in Saskatoon it is 12.6 per cent, in Calgary it is 8.0 per cent, in Edmonton it is 11.6 per cent, in Vancouver it is 9.7 per cent and in Victoria it is 11.9 per cent. Let us compare that with Toronto which has an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent.
We cannot have a united country when the unemployment rate is higher in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and western Canada than it is elsewhere. That is why all of us in western Canada want to do something about creating more opportunities for young and for middle-aged people. That is the way to build a country with strong, diversified economies in the Maritimes and western Canada.
The old national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald and Wilfrid Laurier created strong, diversified, stable economies in central Canada. Those of us in outer Canada now feel it is time we had a new national policy which would do the same things for the other eight provinces and the North. I believe that this Bill is a step in the direction a new national policy would be required to take.
It was asked whether or not the trade agreement will help the West. Hon. Members will notice that three of the four western premiers are strongly in favour of the proposed trade agreement. I trust that on April 26, four premiers from western Canada will be in favour of it.
Business groups, farming groups and western Canadians everywhere believe that this is our chance to have an opportunity, not just for western Canadians but for all Canadians, to have more stability, security and discipline in our trading relationships. I wonder if Hon. Members know that between two million and three million Canadians depend upon access to the U.S. market for their livelihoods. Based on the fact that about one-third of the population is in the West, by my arithmetic, about 600,000 western Canadians are dependent upon the U.S. market for their pay cheques. In that sense, whether one is a pensioner, an artist or a provincial public employee, the trade agreement and the promise it offers for the creation and security of employment is very important to all westerners and to all Canadians, in my submission.

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Western Canada's major exports to the United States include a good share of the almost $3 billion in agricultural products of all sorts sold by Canadian farmers in the U.S. last year. Our grains, beef, pork, natural gas, oil and potash all have faced barriers. The trade agreement will give us more secure access than we would have otherwise.
Do Hon. Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties really think that tearing up the agreement, something which both of them have promised to do, will do anything for their constituents or for western Canada? As someone said the other day, as soon as one of them were to tear up the trade agreement, the new American administration, whether under President Bush or President Dukakis, would simply say, "I have something to tear up for you," and that would be the Auto Pact. I think the support for the trade agreement is strong in western Canada among all thoughtful men and women who want to improve the standard of living in our regions.
It seems to me that the models we should be looking at for western Canada might well be Switzerland, West Germany and Japan. Each of those countries has achieved a high general standard of living and relatively full employment throughout their respective countries by producing a range of high-quality finished products which are exported with major marketing skill and with first-class service to customers. All three populations know that success today in the increasingly interdependent world economy depends on intelligence, quality control and technology, and they act accordingly. I feel that this Bill will move us in this direction, and therefore I think it is one which all Hon. Members should support.
In the West, economic life has historically depended upon things like fish, fur, wheat, beef, forest products, coal, oil, gas and minerals. All of these resource products continue to play a substantial role in our economy. The prosperity of architects, teachers and public employees all depend in a very real way on how these resource products are doing.
Let me give Hon. Members an example of the way one northwestern Canadian put it. Not too long ago he said of a typical Yukon mining development, that the ore goes to Tokyo, the profits to Toronto, the taxes to Ottawa, the jobs to Vancouver, and they are left with a hole in the ground which, if the federal Government gives permission, they could use as a garbage dump. When coal moves to Japan, it comes back as Toyotas or other Japanese cars. Unemployment in that country is virtually non-existent whereas unemployment in the West, as I have indicated before and as we all know, is far too high.
Hon. Members will know that the current prospects for some of the resource sectors such as grains and oilseeds are not as promising as we would like them to be. Therefore, we must come up with a new strategy that will help us create jobs in other sectors.
As an example of what I hope the western diversification strategy will do, I would point to the case of an alfalfa heater
which is being built in my own constituency. I understand that it has a market in Nebraska and someone will pay about half a million dollars for that unit. Someone else in south Edmonton is trying to develop a super computer.
As Members know, we have an extremely talented, highly educated population throughout the west. We have a multicultural population, people from all over the world. Many of them are very entrepreneurial, and many know about other cultures and economies and how we can find a niche in those economies. We have an entrepreneurial dynamism in the west. We have, if you like, a necessity to compete and do well as part of Canada. The ingredients for high technology are all there, as a study by the OECD pointed out. We have a great many things going for us as a region. We have the people, the resources, the will, and this Bill will perhaps give us a little bit more help to put these things in place.
I might say just a few words about oil sands, which are so important to Alberta. If Alberta and western Canada can become the leading centre of oil sands technology in the world we could help develop and build plants in our own region, environmentally sound plants, and go on to help develop oil sands in other parts of the world. We are already using our oil and gas technology in China and the Soviet Union. There is no reason that we cannot build a technology-based superstructure, if you like, in western Canada that would export services around the world.
That is probably where the best hope for the western economy lies. Not to abandon or put aside or stop stressing our resources, but to build a technological base on top of those resources. For example, let me give some suggestions with respect to forestry, since the Hon. Member spoke of it. Why not give further encouragement to harvesting energy from forest biomass? This could be an economic boost for our forest industry and help Canada become a world leader in biomass energy technology. Why not upgrade the importance of the federal Minister responsible for forestry, in part by having him or her responsible for forestry alone? Why not do more research, as I hope we will under this Bill, on things like forest farming on marginal agricultural land and more research into methods of utilizing species such as birch, green ash, willow, alder and soft maples? Why not give some additional federal support to the two forestry schools in western Canada at the University of Alberta and the University of British Columbia? Can we not recruit to public and private forestry service more scientists, more policy analysts and economists? How about more federal funding for western forest renewal through agreements with all four western provinces?
Tourism has been talked about at great length in this House. We could say that British Columbia depends upon three sectors: tourism, forestry and mining. If you reduce U.S. access to all three of those sectors, then you will have calamity in that province. The same for Alberta. Our tourism offers enormous potential. There is potential in Saskatchewan and
March 14, 1988

Manitoba which should be developed. This, as many people have said, is the perfect industry because it brings people in, uses existing facilities, and they leave without pollution. I very much hope that tourism is one area that the western diversification office will look at very carefully because I am told by the end of the century it will be the largest industry in Canada. It offers enormous promise to western Canada.
I must not sit down without saying a word about natural gas. As we know, the industry has had some difficulties. The private sector is understandably reluctant to undertake some of these large oil sands and gas projects because they lack a sense of what the price will be. My suggestion would be that if the difference between the price for some of these oil sands and other projects and the world price could be negotiated in advance, perhaps with the help of the department, it might make the chances of these projects going ahead much better. Security of future supply is so critical that in my view the risk is warranted.
We must give encouragement to new oil sands technology, new ways of separating the sand from the oil. Let me end my remarks with this example because it makes the point probably more strongly than anything I can say and I believe all of this is true. There is an Albertan by the name of Shannon who spent 12 years trying to develop a process for putting coal and bitumen together to produce a clean fuel. I gather within the last several months the method has been perfected. He received I think a $45 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a plant, not in Canada but in Ohio. It is going to be almost a quarter of a billion dollar plant and it will take Ohio coal and bitumen, and would you believe 85 per cent of it will come from Cold Lake, Alberta by pipeline, put those two together and produce a new clean fuel.
The question that all of us in western Canada ask is, why on earth is that project being built in Ohio? Why is it not being built in Alberta where we have an abundance of both coal and bitumen?
This is the kind of thing I hope this Bill will ensure that we stop doing to ourselves. I hope from this Bill will come an era in which it will be unheard of that anyone would put the first pilot project for a plant to use bitumen and coal somewhere other than western Canada. Therefore, I say in support of the Bill that it is a step in the right direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Nystrom:: Madam Speaker, I have a copy of a letter to the editor of The Ottawa Citizen of August 1, 1981, signed by David Kilgour, MP, Edmonton-Strathcona. As an avid reader of newspapers and a pack-rat I found this in my files. It says in part:
The sending of Bruce Rawson to Edmonton as the federal government's "senior advisor 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.
Western Economic Diversification Act
The Hon. Member was very critical of Mr. Rawson being sent to western Canada by the former Liberal Government. Mr. Rawson is now the new head of the western diversification office and is being sent to Edmonton by the present Government.
Very simply, has the Hon. Member changed his mind on the competence of Mr. Rawson? Is he acceptable now where he was not before?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am truly impressed by the research facilities of the NDP and the Hon. Member. They must read an awful lot of newspapers very carefully.
Mr. Rawson is a distinguished Albertan. He started out in the Alberta Attorney General's department long before I was there. His wife continued to live in Edmonton, I believe his children were in university there, while he was here. Having worked with him when he was Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs in the days when I was a Parliamentary Secretary, I can assure the Hon. Member that Mr. Rawson is a highly competent individual. I have since laughed with him about that letter and I have changed my view of him. He is an excellent individual for this job and I cannot think of anyone who would do a better job than Bruce Rawson.
While I have had some problems getting some projects approved, as I am sure the Hon. Member has, I think Mr. Rawson is eminently qualified to be heading up this new department.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is certainly my intention to debate this issue but, noting the clock, I wonder whether the Speaker would like to defer the beginning of my remarks until after Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are 13 minutes left if the Hon. Member would like to start his comments. However, if there is unanimous consent by the House to call it 1.14,1 will do so.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am quite prepared to go on. I was not aware that there was a 14-minute extension as I was not in the House when it was announced. I am quite prepared to start now if you like.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to address once again the issue of western development. I have read with interest the comments of the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who just spoke. I want to compliment him in particular for an article he wrote recently entitled "Policy Options". It was a very thoughtful piece. I did not agree entirely with the content, but I did admire his efforts to put western development into a

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
framework of analysis, even though I think he fell substantially short on some of his prescriptions.
The Member mentioned how the trade agreement will affect western Canada. It has been heralded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as the great salvation for the West. It has been held out as the generator of massive economic growth, all kinds of new initiatives, and development of industry.
Even as late as this weekend the Economic Conference Board has estimated that any expectations for a grand economic bonanza are fallacious. The Department of Finance, now confirmed by the Economic Conference Board, pointed out that the best we can assume, the most optimistic scenario of economic benefits of the trade agreement, is half of 1 per cent of gross per year which, any economitrician will tell you, is within the margin of error of any forecasting model. It is so marginal, so meaningless, as to not even be within the capacity to make an accurate forecast.
This consistent effort to try to paint the trade agreement as being the key which will open economic riches is in fact contradicted, first by the Government's own report put forward by the Department of Finance, and now confirmed by the Economic Conference Board, which in itself supports a trade agreement for other reasons but confirms that any expectation that it will result in huge economic growth is not to be believed.
I suggest that the Hon. Member go back and look at the hard facts, rather than the theology, as presented in his Government's own analysis and in the recent analysis by the Economic Conference Board. It is simply not there. The expectations which were raised over two years ago are not being borne out.
In fact, as the Conference Board itself points out, the Government will be facing a major deficit that will have to be made up by increased taxation. The Conference Board estimates an annual deficit of close to $4 billion cumulative that will have to be made up by increased taxes, or increasing the deficit of the Government itself. It would be very prudent for Conservative Members of Parliament, before talking about the trade agreement, to check their facts. They need not believe me, they need only believe their own Government, their own Department of Finance, and the Economic Conference Board which is a business based group. Those are the prescriptions of those organizations.
Second, it is important to put some perspective as well on whether in fact the free trade agreement will have a specific incentive for regional development. I am often amused by the efforts of the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and other Conservative Members to make a comparison between the Auto Pact and western Canada. They constantly use the argument that if the Auto Pact was good for Oshawa the free trade agreement should be good for western Canada, as if they were the same thing when in fact they are not. They are quite different, quite contrary trade agreements.
The Auto Pact is a managed trade agreement which carries within it very clear safeguards ensuring that job investment takes place in Canada, whereas the proposed agreement with the Americans contains none of those safeguards. In fact, they have taken the safeguards away from the Auto Pact itself and have put no safeguards in for any other industry. They will be applying the principle of national treatment, which is that there can be no safeguards, preferences, or advantages for Canadian businesses over American businesses. Therefore, any effort to try to make the comparison is fallacious, it does not hold true.
I would only ask the Member, who I believe has a commitment to doing proper research, to look at what happened to various regions in Europe after the Common Market. Has it helped the north of England for example? In fact, the north of England has become more depressed since joining the Common Market than it was before. Certain regions of the southeast portion of France have become more depressed. The Mediere region, for example, has suffered more as a result of that than it did previously. One of the reasons for that is that once you apply a simple market-based system and eliminate the opportunity to undertake public action to provide for a redress of imbalances, of course the forces of the market-place and geography take over and you eliminate the opportunity to have a political economy, to make certain choices from the public sector to compensate for or reallocate the market-place.
That, after all, has been the history of Canada. There would not be a Canada if those choices had not been made. The founders of Confederation from Lower and Upper Canada and the Maritimes formed this country based upon a political choice. They could have easily followed the north-south lines of the market-place and geography but they did not. They wanted to create a different country. Since then we have had to take decisions like building a railroad with great government subsidy from east to west to hold the country together, a public sector communications system, a national health system, and regional development programs. The impact of the trade agreement will be to reduce substantially and limit the capacity of federal and provincial governments to undertake those initiatives.
Let me give the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona an example. He concluded his remarks by talking about a project to turn coal into a new form of energy. There is another coal project which is very important to western Canada, that is, the movement of western Canadian coal to Ontario to be burned in the hydro plants of Ontario in order for them to meet their environmental restraints.
A task force of federal-provincial public servants reported about a year ago on a very exciting economic development project for western Canada. They pointed out that the Government of Ontario presently buys about $1 billion worth of coal a year from the Americans. However, it is coal with a high sulphur content, it is dirty coal and it spews acid rain into the air. Ontario Hydro must reduce those emissions by 50 per cent by the year 1990. They have a choice. They can either
March 14, 1988

invest very heavily in expensive scrubbers and technologies to eliminate the sulphur content, or they can purchase western Canadian coal from the foothills of Alberta.
That would have enormous economic payoffs. There would be $6 billion or $7 billion of new capital investment and 20,000 to 30,000 new jobs, not only in the mines themselves but along the railroad lines from western Canada to the hydro plants in Ontario. That is an incredibly important regional development project for the West.
The key to making it work, as the task force reported, would be necessary freight rate subsidies of about $6 or $7 a tonne. No one should be frightened by that. We have been using freight rate subsidies in Canada since Confederation in order to compensate for our geography. There are freight rate programs in the Atlantic. Of course, the most important freight rate program is under the Western Grain Transportation Act, which subsidized the movement of grain by about $60 and $70 a tonne. Without that we would not be able to export our grain because we must send our wheat and barley along an extensive railway line.
The task force reported that the key to making it work is a freight rate program. That is a legitimate and interesting possibility for western Canadian development. It would involve $6 billion or $7 billion of investment and some 20,000 to 30,000 jobs.
While this would make for a useful debate for Canadians, we will no longer have the right to make that decision on the day the trade agreement the Prime Minister has signed comes into effect. Western Canadians will not be able to bring about that kind of program because the trade agreement would clearly eliminate the possibility of a new freight rate subsidy for the movement of western coal. Once the agreement is signed, would the Americans watch a $1 billion a year purchase be replaced by western Canadian coal without kicking up a fuss or threatening to abrogate the agreement because it betrays the principles of national treatment? Would they not undertake trade actions against this?
The Member from Alberta should have a strong interest in the development of western Canadian coal. If he supports that trade agreement he will be rejecting one of the most important potential projects for western Canadian economic development in this generation. How can he say that this will be a great boon for western Canada when it will be eliminating some of the major projects that we would have.
That is not the only example. Mr. Archie McLean, VicePresident of McCain's Food, who is a Conservative by his own admission, wrote to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). He said that while he is a hard core Conservative, she is dead wrong when it comes to the trade agreement. The food processing industry is an essential part of the food chain in Canada and an essential industry in western Canada. Mr. McLean said that as a Canadian food processor he has the choice either to shut down his plants in Canada or move south.
Western Canada bases a large part of its industry on agriculture and food processing. That industry is being put into jeopardy, and let me give an example of why. McCain's has a large plant in Portage la Prairie where it makes frozen French fries. They buy potatoes from the farmers of the Portage Interlake district of Manitoba for about $120 a tonne. This is a very important source of supply for those farmers. However, McCains can get the same potatoes in Idaho for $93 a tonne. Mr. McLean suggests that his next plant would be located where the input costs are lower. The same example applies to other vegetables, chickens and other products.
Madam Speaker, I hope I will be able to continue after Question Period and edify the House as to why the trade agreement is a disaster for western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will be welcome to continue his speech after Question Period.
It being 1.14 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.14 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay a last tribute to a great Canadian, the Hon. Marcel Crete, Chief Justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who died Friday night in Montreal. We were very sad at the news of his death. Judge Crete contributed greatly to the development of law in Quebec.
Born in La Tuque, the Chief Justice went to school in Grand-Mere and Trois-Rivieres before going to Laval University. He was called to the bar in 1937 and studied at Osgoode Hall in Toronto.
The Chief Justice practised law in Grand-Mere for 29 years before being appointed to the Superior Court of Trois-Rivieres in September 1966. He was subsequently appointed to the highest court in the province, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in January 1972. Finally, in 1980 he became Chief Justice.
Respected by his colleagues and friends, Judge Marcel Crete was a man of integrity and principle. In 1986, he was awarded the Medaille du Barreau in recognition of his great legal skills and commitment to the community.

March 14, 1988
The death of Chief Justic Marcel Crete is a great loss to us all. I am sure my colleagues in the House share my grief and will want to join me in extending our sincere condolences to his family and friends.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian banks are still asking for permission to get into the life insurance business but our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is right in not allowing Canadian banks to sell life insurance.
There has been little or no movement from banks to stop the petty charges that are a burden to their customers. The banks have not stopped charging customers for services they did not explain to customers when their accounts were opened, nor do they feel they have to give an explanation or proof of work done when money is taken out of a customer's account without the customer's knowledge.
Can you imagine the games, Mr. Speaker, that could be played with insurance? I have already heard of one banking institution which refused to pay an insured loan because it claimed the insured customer knew of his health condition when the loan was taken out. I agree with the Minister.


DISASTERS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members will want to express sympathy to the community of Sambro, Nova Scotia, for the apparent loss of a 68-foot wooden vessel, Bonnie Lou II, and a crew of five young men. The subsequent search and rescue attempt took place in very heavy seas under adverse weather conditions, once again showing the danger and difficulty of a fishing occupation in Canada.
In October the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) released the Coast Guard Study into Fishing Vessel Safety. Much attention was given to the placement of blame on those who fish for a living and the way they practise their trade, suggesting that fishermen were careless.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed by the Minister. First, mandatory use of EPRBs aboard fishing vessels would ensure that distress signals can be monitored. Recently two resolutions were passed in the Nova Scotia
Legislature, supported by all Parties, calling upon the federal Government to establish a search and rescue base at Yarmouth for the South West Nova region. I urge that sympathy be followed by action so that the dangers inherent in this occupation can be reduced.


TRIBUTE TO ROBERT BOURASSA
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa, announced that Quebec would start building new hydro-electric power stations this year.
Construction on three new stations at LG-1, Laforge and Brisay at James Bay, in the federal riding of Abitibi, at a cost of $7.5 billion during the next seven years, is a reassuring prospect for Quebecers, since it will create 40,000 jobs, involve major investments, and we will be able to export our surplus power to the United States.
Mr. Bourassa said that to him, letting Quebecers benefit from this natural resource was a tangible form of patriotism.
Mr. Speaker, it is a source of pride for Quebecers who believe in this great project and it is a source of great satisfaction for me as a former employee with technical surveys at Hydro-Quebec from 1965 to 1968.
Bravo, Mr. Bourassa, you are a great Quebecer!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-AMENDMENT OF STATUTES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, in a study which has just been completed for us by the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament, it appears there may be as many as 21 individual Acts of Parliament that will have to be amended before the trade deal with the United States can be put into effect, everything from the Bank Act to the Copyright Act to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Yet no Canadian House of Commons committee is even holding hearings on this vast deal, and no committee has held such hearings since the final text of the agreement was issued.
March 14, 1988

Compare this with the United States. There, at least nine congressional committees and subcommittees are holding hearings, including Agriculture, Energy and Power, Consumer Protection, Mining and Natural Resources, Small Business, Finance, Foreign Affairs, and the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade. All these hearings permit American special interests to push hard for changes favouring them.
In short, we see here yet another-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to Statistics Canada employment figures which were released last Friday. In 1984 we promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Have we delivered? Some 1,213,000 jobs have been created across Canada. Unemployment figures have fallen. In 1984 they were 11.7 per cent. They are now down to 7.8 per cent, the lowest in seven years. The number of unemployed persons has decreased by 420,000.
Some 84 per cent of these jobs are full-time. By contrast, under the last Liberal administration 80 per cent of the jobs were part-time.
Youth unemployment has fallen from 18.3 per cent to 12 per cent. By contrast, it rose 5.4 per cent under the last Liberal Government, and it rose 2.5 per cent when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the Minister of Finance.
Unemployment has decreased in all areas across Canada. In my area of Ontario we are at 5.1 per cent unemployment, the lowest level in 13 years.
What have we done for women? The number of women in managerial positions has increased 36 per cent since 1984-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, back in October, 1970, I was proud to be one of 16 Members in the House of Commons who voted against the imposition of the War Measures Act. We did so because there was no evidence of an apprehended insurrection at that time.
The recent release of Don Jamieson's diary appears to substantiate the view that there wasn't any evidence of an apprehended insurrection. At that time the Conservative Party of Canada voted for the imposition of the War Measures Act.
Over the weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in effect counselled the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to break the law by revealing some cabinet secrets. I suggest that, instead of that, the Prime Minister should explain why his Party supported the imposition of the War Measures Act back in 1970. Can he tell us why his Party voted in favour of that particular Act? Can he tell us what his own role was at that particular time?
From a very reliable book entitled Friends in High Places by Claire Hoy I quote the following:
"Brian was the point man for a lot of people, for a lot of passing on of
information" and that "he was dealing with Claude Ryan and Bourassa and
Claude Castonguay, and for a whole lot of people."


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.


FINANCE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is just a year ago that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs presented its report on credit card interest rates in Canada.
Contrary to speculation around the Hill, my broken wrist is not due to having my arm twisted by any credit card lobbyist.
I refer to the report because it is a demonstration of how Parliament can work for Canadian consumers. Since the report, interest rates on credit cards have been reduced, and there have been other gains made for consumers. But there is much yet to be done.
The deficiencies in what has been done thus far will be made up by the Private Member's Bill, Bill C-266, which I have introduced. I hope that in the near future the Bill will be drawn for second reading and that it will receive support from all Parties in the House.


DISASTERS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it has now
been almost two years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident in

March 14, 1988
April, 1986. There has been some evidence that sickness from radioactive fall-out is on the increase in Ukraine. Malnutrition is also a problem. Some residents of the Ukraine are unable to secure food from uncontaminated areas and are afraid to use local meat or milk.
The Soviet news agency, Tass, reported in July, 1987, that almost 75 per cent of the land around Chernobyl has been recultivated. Some 14 settlements that were evacuated at the time of the accident have been resettled, while another 20 will soon follow. These measures may very well increase the numbers of people becoming sick because of exposure to radiation in the environment and in the food chain.
Granted that the Chernobyl reactor lacked the safety features of later models such as the CANDU, the public is still very concerned about the possibility of another nuclear accident.
Therefore, I urge the Government to support the work being done internationally in such areas as evaluating acceptable levels of radiation and forms of intervention, informing the public, ensuring prompt notification of accidents, and supporting a proposal by the OECD to require states to consult their neighbours before building nuclear power stations in frontier areas.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the struggle for equality for opportunity took another giant step forward last Saturday night at the Harry Jerome awards dinner in Toronto when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the appointment of Gil Scott as a Commissioner of the Public Service Commission of Canada, the first ever visible minority person to hold that position.
This, combined with the appointment of Lincoln Alexander, the first ever visible minority person to serve as Lieutenant-Governor; the appointment of Cal Best, the first ever visible minority person to serve as a Canadian Ambassador; the Employment Equity Act, and the Affirmative Action Program for visible minorities in the Public Service, all in just over three years, is a record of which the Prime Minister and the Government can be proud.
However, the struggle for equal opportunity is not over and, in the words of one young Harry Jerome award winner last Saturday night, "the future is now".


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I had an opportunity to tour some remote communities in the Churchill riding. I was depressed by the fact that after many years of both Liberal and Conservative regimes the people living on reserves do not have water systems, do not have sewage systems, do not have adequate housing, and do not have the same amount of money spent per capita on their young children for education.
At the same time I toured some of my Metis communities which in many cases have water and sewage systems, more money spent on education, and better housing programs.
I call upon the federal Government to live up to its responsibilities to provide native people not only of northern Manitoba but of the whole country with adequate systems of housing, of water, of sewage, and of education.
I am concerned about the seniors in my riding, but I am more concerned about the youth. To see three-year olds, four-year olds, and five-year olds living and growing up at the end of the 20th century and not to see any attempt by the federal Government to resolve the problems is a complete catastrophe and a national disgrace.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe, but the economic boom times in Ontario seem to be bringing about a spending binge by the provincial Liberals that would make even Pierre Elliott Trudeau blush.
David Peterson is throwing money in every direction, and the people continue to line up for more. They think that Santa Claus has come to town again.
Last year's newly discovered $1 billion is gone. Even with a 5.9 per cent spending increase, Ontario could have balanced its books this year. Instead, unprecedented spending has gobbled up that SI billion windfall, has increased the Ontario annual deficit again this year, and now the Premier is forecasting increased taxes.
What a pity that the federal Government continues to put the Trudeau mess in order but Ontario may not benefit as it begins borrowing itself into economic chaos.
The piper will have to be paid. How long will it be before someone else will have to be brought into Ontario, this time to fix up the David Peterson economic mess?
March 14, 1988


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Investor Program allowed individuals with a net worth of $500,000 to attain landed status if they invest $250,000 in a Canadian venture for three years.
Recently Quebec Immigration found a loophole whereby immigrant investors were being guaranteed their investments of $250,000 and received an annual interest rate of 3 per cent on the amount. This practice is contrary to the Immigration Act. The Minister, once informed of this practice, moved quickly and suspended the guarantees. He will not allow visas to be sold.
This scheme probably pre-empted the standard medical and security clearances, and it is not fair nor ethical for all those wishing to enter Canada. One immigration law must apply all across Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE KING AND QUEEN OF SWEDEN
Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want me to bring to all Members' attention the presence in the gallery of Their Majesties King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Over the weekend the Prime Minister avoided or evaded answering questions concerning the speech given last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the very important matter of the Middle East. Considering both the confusion and the concern those remarks have raised, it is important for Canadians to know if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are speaking with the same voice and from the same text.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following questions. Did he discuss this matter with the Secretary of State and review the speech? Did he approve of the final text
Oral Questions
of the remarks given by the Secretary of State and, perhaps, most important, do the remarks of the Secretary of State explicitly express the position of the Prime Minister and his Government on the very important and delicate matters taking place in the Middle East?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House the other day, the statement I made to the Canada-Israel Committee of course reflects the policy of the Government of Canada.
It is a policy that has been expressed, both in the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of Israel, in answers that I have given in the House of Commons, and in other positions the Government has taken.
The Hon. Member asks if the Prime Minister and I have discussed the matter in detail. He is asking the question: Did the Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs discuss this speech word for word for word. Of course we did not. This Prime Minister of Canada has distinguished himself, among other ways, in encouraging his Ministers to exercise their responsibilities in their own fields and in their own Departments. I have done that. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has done that. We do it with the full support of the Prime Minister of Canada.
The position of this country on issues relating to the Middle East is clear and is stated consistently by the Prime Minister, by myself, and by other spokesmen authorized to speak in that field for the Government.


CONTENT OF SPEECH-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Secretary of State for External Affairs believes and what he has stated. My question was for the Prime Minister.
I want to repeat my question to the Prime Minister especially in light of his statement over the weekend about the remarks given by the Secretary of State. He said, "In speaking frankly you may question his words, but not his motives".
In this case the words are very important. They carry a great deal of meaning. I want to ask the Prime Minister explicitly: Does he question the words of the Secretary of State? Is he differing in any way from the remarks that were given in front of the Canada-Israel Committee last week? Does he have reservations and concerns about the kind of tone and nature of the remarks given by the Secretary of State?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question of my hon. friend is very surprising in light of a statement made this morning by his colleague, the Liberal Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. He was quoted as saying this morning, referring to the NDP and Liberal speeches, and the Conservative speech given by the Secretary of State, that he read all of the speeches very thoroughly and it seems to him that there are no contradictions

March 14, 1988
Oral Questions
between any of the speeches and that the basic policy of the three Parties is the same. This was a statement made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East this morning. I wonder where my hon. friend is coming from.
With regard to my position, I have been on the record consistently. Perhaps I could quote something that I indicated on Saturday in Toronto. I said: "With regard to statements elsewhere, Mr. Clark has been a firm and a loyal friend of Israel throughout his entire political life. He spoke as a friend of Israel. "He spoke very much as a solid and a committed friend of Israel, trying to send out a message that a true friend can give,... that violence breeds violence and it would be most unfortunate if this gave rise to a situation which endangered this fragile democracy in the Middle East which is Israel and which we all support. Mr. Clark was attempting to be constructive to a friend ... He spoke with the conviction of someone who believes he could be frank because his friendship with Israel could never be question questioned."
The speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs issued support for Israel, support for negotiated peace with the moderate Arab states. It called for restraint and an end to violence on both sides, and it spoke of his active support of the Shultz plan for a negotiated peace in the area. Surely no Member of the House would quarrel with any of those objectives.


NEGOTIATION OF PEACE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF ARAB COUNTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, no one quarrels with those objectives, but the speech contained many other remarks that the Prime Minister did not cite. We are trying to determine whether the Prime Minister is in full agreement with the full and complete text of the remarks given by the Secretary of State.
If I might, I would like to ask an explicit question. The Secretary of State said that the Government of Canada had evidence that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt were prepared to lend their assistance in negotiations toward peace. That is something we would all welcome. I would ask the Prime Minister if he would share that evidence with the House and if he would be able to provide a clear demonstration that these three countries are in fact prepared to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel that will recognize its existence. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the other countries of the Middle East which have been part of those hostilities, particularly Syria, share those same views? These are very important questions, and I want to know if the Prime Minister therefore agrees with the assertions made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Hon. Member is genuinely interested in the attitude of countries that are neighbours to Israel with regard to the peace process. If he
would read my speech to the Canada-Israel Committee, and I would recommend that all Canadians and Hon. Members who are interested in that speech read it carefully, he would find that I made reference to conversations I have had with leaders of Egypt, leaders of Saudi Arabia, and leaders of Jordan. My conclusion from those conversations was that they are interested in playing a constructive role toward the achievement of a peaceful situation in that region. That is the case.
There is another option open to everyone with this issue, and that is the option of making this a matter of partisan disagreement. I share the view of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East that this is not and should not be a matter of partisan disagreement. If the Hon. Member wants to get into the business of quoting statements made by individual Members of this House, I have some statements that I can enter into the debate. I would prefer not to do that because I think it is not constructive.


AIR CANADA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last Friday's Financial Post reported that Air Canada is awaiting government approval to proceed with a $1.5 billion purchase of 34 aircraft from the European consortium, Airbus Industrie.
The Minister knows that the lobbying firm of Government Consultants International owned by Frank Moores, former Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, is acting on behalf of the European consortium. He knows as well that Government Consultants International has hired the Minister's Deputy Minister, Ramsey Withers, as its new president and chief executive officer. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not Mr. Ramsey Withers had any role whatsoever to play in screening or approving Air Canada's new corporate plan?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, without the newspapers, of course, the Opposition would be silent in the House.
With respect to the question, I do not know who Government Consultants International-


Mr. Benjamin:: Not all of us.


John Carnell Crosbie: Good. Some of them have fantasies, of course.
I do not know who Government Consultants International represent. I do not know whether they represent the Airbus consortium or not. Nor do I know whether or not Air Canada is going to recommend to the Government that it replace its
March 14, 1988

present aircraft with aircraft from Airbus. We have not received any decision from Air Canada.
With respect to Mr. Withers, he is a man of complete integrity, honour, faithful service, and rectitude. He has complied completely with the conflict of interest guidelines. He has nothing whatsoever to do with Air Canada's recommendation in this matter. 1 have to ask my hon. friend, is there no smear too low, no person too remote-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


John Carnell Crosbie: -to impugn their integrity in a base manner as he is now attempting to do?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if hot air, bluster and false outrage were the mark-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be proper if the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe put his question succinctly. Perhaps I can prevail upon the Hon. Minister to answer in the same way.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, he has been touchy ever since a provincial Liberal won a seat in his riding a few days ago.


POSSIBLE ROLE OF LOBBYISTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-82, with respect to registration of lobbyists, received second reading in the House today. The Bill creates certain requirements for lobbyists. In the spirit of that Bill, is the Minister prepared to make available to the House a list of all contacts and representations made to him or any official of Transport Canada by GCI, which is owned by his good friend Frank Moores, whom he claims to know nothing about, or by other lobbying agencies acting on behalf of companies that want to provide new aircraft to Air Canada?
This is a $1.5 billion contract we are talking about and the people of Canada have the right to have questions asked of and answers given by a Minister without bluster or false outrage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Everyone in the press gallery is smiling, Brian.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will answer without either of the last two adjectives.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What a hope.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Charles Laughton will never be dead as long as the hon. gentleman is around to feign injured innocence.
Let me say that Mr. Withers, who is not a politician and who has given 40 years of his life to serving the Government of Canada in Defence and Transport, has had no connection with this matter. It is a sign of a desperate Party opposite that they
Oral Questions
have to try to malign a civil servant, people not even in politics, with such scurrilous questions, trying to tie together Government Consultants-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: In short, my answer is this. The question is beyond contempt, absolutely beyond contempt.


FILM INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications but in her absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
He will be aware of the excellent performance his Minister gave in the TV show The Campbells. It is just too bad she could not put on the same performance in her portfolio.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to ask him about that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, a year ago in February 1987, the Government promised it would table a Bill on film distribution in Canada.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister when the Government intends to table this Bill in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr Speaker, the Hon. Member was quite right to comment favourably on the performance of the Minister of Communications. She is an altogether exceptional person and has served this country admirably. She is now breaking new ground in the field of culture and communications, and I am sure the Hon. Member will be very pleased with the end results, which the Minister will table at the appropriate time. However, the situation is a delicate one, and the Minister is anxious to turn this into an impressive finale, as I am sure she will.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the House why it is a difficult situation? We have been waiting a year for the Bill.
Would he care to comment to the House on a report which has come from Washington that there is now to be perhaps a side letter to the free trade Bill in which Washington might

March 14, 1988
Oral Questions
pledge to initiate an unfair trade action under U.S. trade law if Ottawa adopts the film legislation?
Would the Prime Minister not acknowledge that it has been American pressure, from the President, to Jack Valenti, to other lobbyists, that in fact has prevented the Government from bringing forward the long awaited film distribution legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that he has just made an unfair and inaccurate statement. Between two sovereign nations, the United States of America and Canada, we have a free trade agreement. I will not dignify any comment coming from an anonymous source in Washington or elsewhere in respect of any possible side letters which would demean the existence of the treaty itself. I know that, upon reflection, my hon. friend will want to withdraw any such allusion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will note that I have not made any allusions. I am just asking him when we are going to have the Bill and we are not getting any answers.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my final supplementary question on a related topic, publishing. Under the so-called Baie Comeau agreement, if you like, or policy, which will be dear to the Prime Minister's heart, when a Canadian subsidiary of an American publishing company is taken over it has to be offered for sale to a Canadian company. That is true in the case of Ginn Company right now.
Would the Prime Minister guarantee that once a company is taken over under this policy Canadians in fact have control of the company, rather than a back-door control by Gulf and Western as is happening right now with the sale of Ginn Company?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the evidence of the answer is in the action that the Government took. The Government has moved quickly and consistently, both with the Baie Comeau book publishing policy and in the context of the free trade agreement, on a policy which means a great deal to the Government, particularly given that this arrangement with Gulf and Western regarding Ginn was made before either of those policies was in place and we were able to get this agreement from them.
We are very pleased with this. It means that Ginn will remain in Canadian hands. Since its major product is primary
school textbooks, I think it was a good one for us to start with on this book publishing policy.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is aware that the budget for the Eastern Quebec development agreement expires on March 31, and since the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has a habit of being late, whether we are talking about Montreal East or the space agency, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether his Government will be able to announce that the Eastern Quebec development plan and the agencies for outlying regions will be extended after March 31?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to the Government's or the Minister's record on industrial development in Quebec, he should remember that from September 1984 to January 1988, $532 million in federal assistance was spent in Quebec. If the Hon. Member were to look at the situation objectively, he would be embarrassed to compare this record with that of the previous Liberal Government.
As for extending the Eastern Quebec plan or other regional programs, the Minister, as you well know, has already mentioned a number of proposals, and when he is ready to announce either an extension or new initiatives, he will do so at the appropriate time.


TERMINATION OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says not to worry because everything is all right in regional economic development, but could he perhaps explain to the House why his own Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has been telling his colleagues Quebecers must be shown that the Government's determination to renew its regional development policy does not stop at the borders of Quebec?
The IRDP will expire at the beginning of June, and the Government has no plans for a substitute in Quebec. Could the Minister inform the House whether this Government intends to establish a realistic regional economic development program for Quebec as it has done in other parts of the country? Why are we going to be the last ones in on regional economic development?
March 14, 1988


Bernard Valcourt: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's ignorance is appalling. As far as regional development is concerned, the amounts spent in Quebec and across Canada compare more than favorably with what was done before under the Liberal Government.
For instance, in 1984-85, $832 million was spent on subsidies and grants, and now we have matched that with an additional $868 million. This is more than $1 billion. It is certainly not true to say that Quebec has been left out.
When the IRDP expires at the end of June, 1988, as provided under the legislation, other programs will be set up to support industrial development in all parts of Quebec.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. In spite of intensive negotiations last week in Washington, Canada and the United States have been unable to agree on alternatives to the GATT preliminary ruling on Canada's export restrictions on unprocessed salmon and herring.
Because the fishing industry, in co-operation with the Government, needs more time to study possible solutions to this impasse, will the Minister assure the House and the West Coast fishing industry that Canada will not accept the GATT ruling when the full GATT Council meets on March 22 and that there will be more time to study this issue so that a satisfactory resolution can be found?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue as is understood by all Members of this House and particularly West Coast Members who have been in touch with me and other Ministers.
I would like to amend the observation made by the Hon. Member in the preface to his question. Canada and the United States have not yet reached agreement. The discussions that occurred last week were constructive. We are considering now, at the ministerial level in both Canada and the United States, what our next step will be.
As I indicated to the Member when he put a similar question earlier in this process, last week, I think it is not helpful to the Canadian position to get ahead of ourselves. We have to take this step by step and we are doing that.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT CANADA REJECT GATT RULING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not agree that the United States appears to be using this GATT ruling to get access to our fisheries resource and is blowing up a $2 million or $3 million problem to get at a $750 million industry?
If the Minister agrees with that, why will he not commit Canada to refuse the GATT ruling which is going to destroy completely our ability to manage our own resource?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as we have discussed in this House before, there are two questions at issue here. One is how we resolve this particular problem. I have just given a report to the House as to our progress on that matter.
The second has to do with the consistency of the New Democratic Party on the question of GATT. One day, in a statement of principle, it is for GATT. Then, when GATT is applied, it is against GATT. The New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. It has to get its act together.


FINANCE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and is with regard to the special tax benefit for northern and isolated communities. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of how much unfairness has been created as a result of the regulations related to this tax measure.
For example, there are a great many communities which over-qualify on the Minister's point system which, yet, are ruled ineligible simply because they are just a few kilometres short of the required distance.
Has the Minister had the time and the opportunity to consider carefully a proposal which I formally submitted to him whereby the distance factor would be folded in with the point system? It is my submission that this would give this important useful measure greater equity.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would agree with me that we have taken a very important step forward. A number of communities now have permanent access to the northern benefit, and pensioners, small business people, and native peoples who previously did not have access to the remission order providing for the northern benefits now have access on a permanent basis. That is an important starting point in any discussion of northern benefits.

March 14, 1988
Oral Questions
He has pointed out the problems he has seen in his constituency on the borderline between communities within the prescribed region for northern benefits and those that are just outside. We recognize that there are difficulties. That is why we have called for the appointment of a commission that can study these in various parts of the country so that there will be an equitable system that will apply equally to different parts of the country and provide a more equitable basis upon which this northern benefit can contribute.


B. Keith Penner: What ought to be a most useful tax measure is in fact causing confusion, causing division, and causing a good deal of distress in many communities.


REQUEST THAT REGULATIONS BE AMENDED
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister move quickly to amend these regulations and not pass on his responsibility to a commission or task force? We know what has to be done. Why do we not just get on and do it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that he knows what has to be done. I suggest to him that that is a very facile way of dealing with the problem. If we knew what had to be done we would not be calling for the creation of this commission.
These borderlines between different communities are very difficult to address and very difficult to delineate because different sizes of communities, different geographical relationships and elements that are important in deciding whether a community should be inside or outside the prescribed areas are important questions upon which an objective person like a commissioner can give the Government some guidelines. Otherwise, I am sure that he or his colleagues would be the first to say that certain communities received special treatment because they have a Conservative Member of Parliament and another did not because it had a Liberal or NDP Member of Parliament. In fact, I believe that was already stated in this House last week.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced his intention to change the taxation policy for northern benefits almost two years ago. A year and one-half ago he announced the specifics of his intention. At that time I and others wrote him about the problems. One of his own Conservative Members rose in the House to say there was a problem.
Why is he only now setting up a commission to look into the problems with regard to this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, since the time that the Hon. Member wrote we spent much effort in trying to find the proper resolution. It has been very difficult to do so and that is why we believe the best way to
proceed is to have an objective commissioner travel to different parts of the country and give us some advice on this.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that the value of this benefit is some $150 million to $175 million, which is considerably greater than the some $50 million under the remission order. Therefore, a number of communities have benefited by this and, as I indicated previously, pensioners, native people, small business people and others who did not have access to this benefit have access to it now.
We are trying to ensure that it is equitable, but the benefit has been provided to a much larger group of people. I do not think we should lose sight of that.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, there are people who can swim across to the American border who would benefit from this particular exclusion. There are others who live in the North who do not qualify. In the age of parliamentary reform and tax reform, why would the Minister not listen to Members of Parliament? Why did he not act when people were complaining about this problem? Since he refused to act, will he make whatever changes come about retroactive because there are people in the North, not only in Manitoba but in other parts of Canada, who are excluded and unfairly treated because he would not listen and act when he should have.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think it is quite wrong to say that I have not listened.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You said no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have listened to a wide range of Members of Parliament.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You said no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member cannot ask his question seriously if he has his mouth open during the time I am trying to answer. We believe that the best way to deal with this is through a commissioner. We feel that will lead to a more objective resolution for difficult problems.
He says there are many people in the North who are not receiving this benefit. I say to those people that nothing has been taken away from them. Many people in the North are now receiving this benefit for the first time.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. According to a recent report, the diaries of the late Don Jamieson indicate
March 14, 1988

that the War Measures Act was invoked in 1970 on the basis of very flimsy evidence. This is a matter of great concern to all Canadians, particularly to Canadians of Japanese origin who felt the sting of the War Measures Act in the past.
Will the Minister agree to amend the emergency measures legislation currently before the House to ensure that this sort of thing can never ever happen again in this new legislation, based on flimsy evidence? Let us get it right this time.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I fully share my hon. friend's concern. It is important that we protect civil liberties even in times of crisis. As a result of that, I proposed amendments some days ago which would give any citizen of Canada who felt aggrieved the ability to take the Government to court and insist that the Government demonstrate to the court that it had just cause for invoking the new legislation. If it could not justify that, the legislation's invocation would be struck down by the courts.
I call upon Members of the House to pass this legislation as expeditiously as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, St. Pierre and Miquelon have been officially declared a disaster area because, according to the Government of France: "The fishery around St. Pierre has been depleted and the Canadian Government won't allow them into other areas".
My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this situation was caused by overfishing by the metropolitan fleet from France, will the Government of Canada demand an apology from the Government of France for painting Canada as being the villain in this declaration of disaster?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the situation to which the Hon. Member refers is a result of the firm position taken by the Government of Canada in the matter of this fisheries dispute, particularly since negotiations regrettably broke off last October 9.
The Hon. Member knows that our negotiator, Mr. Fortier, and the French representative are to meet again shortly and attempt to discuss how and by what procedures the matter can be restarted. We hope there will be a settlement. In the meantime, we believe that our firm position is having a great deal of influence on the situation.
Oral Questions
It is true that France has declared Saint Pierre and Miquelon a disaster zone. The hon. gentleman is familiar with disaster zones; he sits in one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OPERATIONS OF FRENCH FACTORY FREEZER TRAWLERS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, today four gigantic factory freezer trawlers from France are operating off the south coast of Newfoundland. They have caught 11,000 tonnes of fish, double the entire quota for 1988 allocated by the Government of France. They are going back to France next week to process their fish, to come back in the fall to load up again.
In view of that fact, will the Government of Canada ask the Government of France to make the metropolitan fleet end its fishing now for 1988 before the south coast of Newfoundland has to be a declared a disaster area?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, not only is the hon. gentleman sitting in a disaster zone, he is led by a disaster- "Ali Babble and the Forty Rodents", Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will attempt to answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans checked on the matter today and it says that the 3PS cod fishery is following the same pattern this year as in previous years. The Canadian fishery in that area is following the normal pattern, and total catches to date are about the same as in 1987. What seems to have happened is that the cod stocks have moved out of the disputed 3PS zone because, as the hon. gentleman knows, cod fish are apt to swim and move. They have moved off into the Burgeo bank area in the western gullies where the French are no longer permitted to fish as a result of actions taken by this Government which the Hon. Member should be down on his knees praying for every day.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The 10-year rail line rehabilitation program is fast approaching its end and there are still hundreds of miles of branch lines needing rehabilitation work. Will the Minister explain why, with only one year and $140 million left in the rehab program, he has decided to spend only $25 million this year to upgrade lines in

March 14, 1988
Oral Questions
western Canada? There is much work to do and so little time to do it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to a cause that is very popular, of course, in the West. I do not believe the program is scheduled to end until 1990. We will be dealing with other projects during the year, and as to whether the spending will be just $25 million or three times $25 million will be determined during the course of the year.


REQUEST THAT TERMINATOR DATE BE EXTENDED
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, there is in existence contracts with the rail companies totalling more than $140 million on the rehab program. The program is over in 1989. Will the Minister assure those communities which need work done that he will extend the time to 1990, as he suggested, in order to spend that $140 million and get the job completed as far as the need is presently established?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. gentleman that the fund will be used and further branch lines will be rehabilitated so long as we have the agreement of the grain companies, users, and those involved that these lines are lines that can properly be rehabilitated and that this is the best use of the funds. So there certainly will be additional moneys spent on branch line rehabilitation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the current visit to Washington of Prime Minister Shamir, reportedly to discuss the Shultz peace plan, will the Minister advise the House if the Government has shared with Washington its views on this plan? And will the Minister inform the House what those views are?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, these, of course, are very critical days for the development of the possible movement toward peace in the Middle East. Mr. Shamir arrives today in Washington. Canada has expressed clearly and unequivocally our support for the initiatives being taken by the United States Secretary of State. As the House will know, they are based upon the principle of territorial compromise in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242. That requires movement by both sides.
To that end, among other initiatives in which we might have some influence, I have instructed Ambassadors for Canada in countries in the Middle East, and in countries that might have some influence upon Palestinians, to encourage Palestinian
leaders vigorously to recognize formally and declare formally their acceptance of the independence and territorial integrity of the State of Israel.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology has to do with the space agency.

In an interview last week, the Minister of State for Science and Technology referred to the varied elements of Canada's space program such as radar satellite and mobile communications saying: "All of this begs to be co-ordinated by a central agency". Is it still the Minister's position that Canada needs a central agency to co-ordinate space activities whether or not Canada proceeds with the American space station?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, several of the major components of the comprehensive space effort have moved beyond a conceptual phase into a more detailed design phase. The eventual technical nature of these facilities, be it a space station or Radarsat program, will, of course, influence the design, shape, mandate and mission of a central co-ordinating agency. Cabinet is seized with a number of options being considered within the next two weeks and will make a decision on the agency following that.


ESTABLISHMENT OF SPACE AGENCY-GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Berger: I do not know why the Minister tries to avoid the question. Last week he said, when he was asked whether the space agency depended on the space station: "Well, I mean, I don't want to mix up the two". He went on to say: "There remains a requirement for a central agency to co-ordinate and manage these international obligations". So I come back to my question. Will the Minister rise in his place and state unequivocally, as he did in an interview with CBO Radio last week, that Canada needs a space agency whether or not we proceed with the American space station?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall using the words, "mixed up". The Hon. Member has been known to mix up agencies with stations.
The fact is that a number of the major components of the space program are moving into another phase and Cabinet is considering various options which are available. The necessity
March 14, 1988

to co-ordinate these efforts will emerge, and the shape of an agency will emerge, after this has been considered.
Canada is a leading nation in space and we have no intention whatever to give up that lead. We have every intention to co-ordinate properly and manage any of the international obligations that are associated with that.


IMMIGRATION
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week a ruling by the Federal Court of Canada curtailed the powers of the Immigration Appeal Board. Could the Minister inform the House of the absolute chaos and consequences to Canada's immigration system as a result of this ruling, coupled with the Senate's inaction on Bill C-55 and Bill C-84?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I know how sensitive he is to immigration issues. We have not yet taken a decision as to whether or not we will go before the Court of Appeal about the decision with respect to the Immigration Appeal Board.
I have said in the House many times that the House of Commons has already voted on two Bills to deal with the immigration issues. We just have to look every day in the newspapers to see the problems we increasingly face. As long as the Senators will not make up their minds about this Bill, and as long as they drag their feet on this decision, I can do nothing.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GRAPE GROWERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since everyone, including the Government, admits that grape growers are going to be put out of business by the free trade agreement, can the Government tell us the amount of assistance and the type of assistance that will be made available to the large number of Canadian producers of wine grapes in Ontario and British Columbia who will be put out of business upon implementation of this agreement?
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reject the contents of the Hon. Member's observation. We must recognize that the difficulty that the grape and wine industry finds itself in is a direct result of provincial trade barriers and of provincial pricing mechanisms.
The Hon. Member will know that those negotiations go on, led quite appropriately by the federal Government, in cooperation and conjunction with the provinces.
He should take some satisfaction, as the industry is taking some satisfaction, with the fact that I convened a meeting of all the provincial players within the industry, as early as December 4, I believe. Meetings have been held in B.C. and also in Ontario since that period of time at almost two-week intervals. I expect to receive recommendations from the federal-provincial industry committee in the not too distant future.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period, given the time. A single question by the Hon. Member for York West.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the Federal Court ruling which effectively places the Immigration Appeal Board in a straitjacket because of the provisions of the Bill. The problem is with the Bill and not with the Senators, including Conservative Senators who are equally incensed.
Given that the Government's own legislation even before it becomes law has caused this paralysis in the system which will only aggravate the backlog, will the Minister give us an undertaking that he will not appeal the situation, which will lengthen the time in procedure, but instead that he will remove this provision from the Bill and allow the independence of the system and the effectiveness of the system to continue rather than causing this paralysis?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not give any undertaking to my friend, but if you will tell your friends on the other side-


Sergio Marchi: Address the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.
Privilege-Mr. Allmand PRIVILEGE

March 14, 1988


APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-72
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege of which notice was given to you this morning. This question of privilege is with respect to the striking of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-72 last Friday.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-72 is the Bill on official languages. In particular, this is a Bill designed to help the language minority communities in Canada.
My complaint and the basis for my question of privilege is that this legislative committee has no representation from the anglophone minority from Quebec, although that could have been done. It is well known that this community has considerable concern for this Bill and has considerable concern for language rights.
I also point out that the Acadian community in Canada is not represented on the committee, nor is the francophone community of the West.
I have no objection to those people who are named, in particular the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who is the only representative of a language minority on the committee. Surely, the other language minorities should be represented. This is particularly so because there has been an attempt by certain Conservative Members in the House to amend and weaken the Bill-
Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member rises with respect to the appointments to a legislative committee. So that the public that is watching and listening to this will understand what this means, after a Bill has passed second reading it then goes in most cases to a legislative committee. The members of the legislative committee are determined by the Whips of all three Parties. It is for the Speaker to appoint the chairperson.
Depending on the wish of all three Parties, the legislative committee can be of different sizes. The Hon. Member is rising on a question of privilege because he says that some groups in the country that are important in this matter do not have, I take it, a Member who sits specifically in a seat which represents their concerns. That is the Hon. Member's concern.
I would ask the Hon. Member not to again get into the debate on second reading of Bill C-72.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point. Under Standing Order 93(1) legislative committees can have up to 30 members. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should have a committee of 30 members, but surely the committee should have more than seven members, the number which it presently has, particularly to allow different language minorities in the country to be represented on the committee.
I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to use your influence, since you have a role to play in the appointment of the chairperson of the committee, to see if this committee cannot be enlarged in accordance with the Standing Orders so that the Anglophones from Quebec, the Acadians from the Atlantic provinces and western Francophones can also be represented on this committee. This would ensure that all interests, especially the interest of those for whom the Bill was designed, come out of that committee in a substantial, sound way.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has raised a question which is clearly of very great importance to the Chair. Bill C-72, quite properly so, has gained a great deal of attention from all sides of the House. There have been different views as to the Bill itself.
What the Hon. Member is now asking the Chair to do is something that the Chair cannot do, that is, expand unilaterally the numbers on a committee, or for that matter determine the appointment of Hon. Members to the committee, which as I indicated a few minutes ago is the prerogative of each of the Parties.
It is true that the Chair, that is, myself, has not only the privilege but the obligation to appoint the chairperson of that committee. Hon. Members will know that I have exercised that prerogative, and I think properly so, by appointing my Deputy Speaker, who I think will not only be acceptable to all Members in the House but who has clearly demonstrated on many occasions his impartiality and his concern for both linguistic communities.
I am sorry to have to advise the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East that, despite the fact that he might very well have a complaint with his colleagues in his own Party, or his own Whip, or others in the Chamber, it is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene. I know that the Hon. Member will understand that I cannot let the matter go on any further because I am powerless to intervene. I have also to advise that, while it may very well be an appropriate complaint to be taken elsewhere, it is not a question of privilege before this Chamber.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a matter relating to this question of privilege. Of course, I find it very difficult to accept that the committee should be composed of only seven members and that we have only one from this caucus on the committee. I understand the feelings of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). It was not our decision but the decision of the government Members who form a majority on the committee to restrict the number to seven.
My point to you, Mr. Speaker, deals with Standing Order 93(3), which deals with the requirement that within two days after adoption of a Bill at second reading, the legislative committee must meet to set its priorities and to set its meeting schedule. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there were some
March 14, 1988

difficulties in getting this committee struck. I shared with you in confidence some of my concerns about that, Mr. Speaker. I did not raise them in the House.
However, I am now concerned that the committee will have to sit soon, and it will have to sit according to our Standing Orders within two days after adoption, which is now impossible, since that was last Monday. A week ago in the House we adopted the said Bill C-72. We are one week into our agenda. The committee has not met and will not meet today or tomorrow. 1 understand that it will meet some time this week. So that my concerns on this matter can be met in an effective and efficient manner, I wonder if the Speaker can tell me when he expects the committee to meet so that we can have some idea.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised an important point under our Standing Orders, but I feel it would not be proper for the Chair to comment today on the date on which the committee should meet for the first time. I fully understand the Hon. Member's concern, and he has indeed told me about the delay. Clearly this delay is contrary to our Standing Orders. Now, 1 think that the committee will meet for the first time soon, hopefully sometime this week. I understand this is a very important matter, but discussions with the Government Leader in the House and with other Hon. Members concerning the exact date would be useful to the Hon. Member. But it would not be proper for the Chair to set up the date of the first meeting.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was not my point, Mr. Speaker. My point was that under S.O. 93,(3) which reads:
(3) A legislative committee constituted pursuant to sections (1) and (2) of this Standing Order, shall meet within two sittings days after the adoption of the motion for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of the bill...
Mr. Speaker, my point is that until today, which is March 14, we are in violation of our Standing Orders because the committee has failed to meet. It happens sometimes that the Government fails to reply to our questions within the 45 statutory days. There is no possible remedy for that, other than a request to the Chair asking him to do something to speed up matters.
In this case, to say the least, there was clearly a breach of S.O. 93,(3). I would like an assurance from the Chair that the Committee will meet as soon as possible, and I will be satisfied with that.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could be of some help to the Hon. Member. He is perfectly right. This is clearly a situation where there has been a breach of our Standing Orders. Since the first intervention, I have been advised that the first meeting will probably be held on Thursday.
Western Economic Diversification Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That this House endorses the adoption of the motion, on Monday, March 7, 1988, of the Prime Minister for second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of Bill C-l 13, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House took recess at 1.14 p.m., the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just before I continue, I wonder whether the Chair could indicate how much time I have remaining.


Mr. Speaker:: Seven minutes.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, seven minutes will not do justice to the remarks I want to make, but I will do my best.
As I was pointing out before the luncheon break, the proposed trade agreement being negotiated when signed will have a devastating effect upon the western Canadian economy in a number of areas. I cited as evidence the representations of the food processing industry. It is also instructive to look at the kinds of concerns being raised by the agricultural community. The abandonment of the clear principle of subsidies on the transportation system, the surrender of that basic principle, will cause enormous consternation in the future. When we become involved in the negotiations at Geneva concerning agriculture, the precedent that the Government has now accepted and established in the Western Grain Transportation Act, which in fact is a trade related subsidy, will be used by other countries as a way to force the veto of that very essential means of development.
If we look at the fruit and vegetable industry, the whole development of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia will be put in jeopardy. The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture appeared before our task force just a few weeks ago and clearly enunciated major concerns that the horticultural industry of the province would be in jeopardy. It is also true for the vegetable industry of Manitoba with the problems being faced in that area.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) went to great length to indicate the bonanza which would be created in the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries-the energy field. The effect of the trade agreement on

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
the energy sector will be more serious than on any other sector. For example, the United States needs our energy resources. It has the biggest appetite for energy of any country in the world. Basically it is becoming a buyer's market. At the very moment when we know that the United States desperately needs our energy resources, what do we do? We fix a price. We do not go to a market price, or to allowing that kind of demand to set prices. The constraint is that if we raise prices for the Americans we would have to raise them for Canadian consumers. We will not be able to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the fact that it is now a buyer's market.
I submit that we are giving up one of the most competitive advantages of western Canada. Let us also consider the petrochemical field. How was it formed? How were various industries in Manitoba formed? They were formed by using energy as a competitive advantage. We gave a special price to those users, but we could no longer do that.
The trade agreement will substantially limit the major industrial advantage we have in terms of developing a new comparative arrangement vis-a-vis the United States. Where do we have an advantage over them? Is it in skilled manpower or resources? The Americans have those commodities. Increasingly our advantage is in cheaper energy resources. However, the Government is giving it up. The Government is surrendering it. It is abandoning the future of western Canada in utilizing hydroelectric power, natural gas, and petroleum to give Canadian industry a substantial advantage in competing with the Americans and competing world-wide. That totally denies logic and the opportunity for industry to grow in western Canada. We are the source blood of energy, whether it is hydroelectric power in British Columbia and Manitoba or natural gas in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. The fact is that that is the key to the future of the western Canadian economy. However, the Government has put a lock on it. It has put a fix on it. It has given away that opportunity.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona attempted to justify the trade deal as being a great bonanza. The fact is that we will lose jobs in a number of existing industries. Also we are giving up a major competitive advantage in one of our most important industries. I submit that western Canada will be devastated in its opportunity and its potential. Whatever small amount of money will trickle in as a result of western diversification, it will be lost in comparison with the enormous subtraction that will take place as a consequence of the Government going ahead and ratifying the particular deal with the Americans.
That is the real story for western Canada. Contrary to the claims and promises, it will become an albatross around western Canada and a major deterrent to the development of new industrial and resource based industries in the West. That is the real tragedy, and the House should be debating the surrender and abandonment of the western Canadian economy by the Government.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly to a number of points which the Hon. Member raised. He told us that the Auto Pact was managed trade. Will he tell us when other than I believe in 1968, when any of the minimum production safeguards were used other than briefly in 1980 or 1981 when Chrysler was in difficulty. In fact, to all intents and purposes we have free trade in the auto industry. That is why Oshawa and southern Ontario is doing so well. In western Canada we are all delighted about that, but I do not think it is fair for the Member to pretend that the Auto Pact is not a free trade agreement. It is one that can be terminated on one year's notice by the Congress, whereas under the trade deal if Congress wants to kill the Auto Pact it will have to kill the entire trade agreement. In that sense it entrenches a very good thing for southern Ontario and parts of Quebec, and I am all for it.
The Member mentioned the use of high sulphur coal. I have looked into this matter. I share fully the concerns of my fellow western Canadian colleagues about the use of high sulphur coal. Perhaps the Hon. Member can do something with Premier Peterson about encouraging Ontario Hydro not to use high sulphur coal. I was told recently that in a few years when those contracts run out we will be able to move low sulphur western coal by pipeline through to Ontario Hydro. There will no need for a transportation subsidy. I assume the subsidy is what the Hon. Member is concerned about in the trade agreement.
The Hon. Member mentioned food processing. I tried over the lunch hour to get a list of the organizations in western Canada in favour of the trade agreement but three or four provincial Governments are in favour, presumably four on April 26 with Manitoba, the Canada West Foundation, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Cattlemen and Milton Harris. I remind the Hon. Member that Mr. Harris is president of the Harris steel group. He said he will abandon his lifelong Liberal membership because he feels so strongly that this agreement is good for the steel industry across Canada. The grain and oil seed sector will benefit, the lumber industry will benefit. Who in western Canada other than the Hon. Member and the outgoing dead or dying Government of Manitoba and Mel Hurtig, a friend of mine in Edmonton, agrees with the Hon. Member on this?
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) referred to the energy agreement. I have a paper here by Professor Brian Scarfe of the University of Alberta on the trade agreement. Professor Scarfe certainly thinks, as do most people in the energy industry in Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and everywhere else, that the agreement will do a great deal to help create jobs and keep jobs in the energy industry. Perhaps the Member might like to deal with some of those points, or perhaps his friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), might do it for him.
March 14, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first let me comment on the Auto Pact. It is instructive that Victor Lomo who represents the Auto Pacts Manufacturers of Canada, a most important industrial based group, has said he is against this agreement because it will devastate the auto parts industry of Ontario. He appeared before a Liberal trade task force about four weeks ago. I will be glad to send the Hon. Member the comments of Mr. Lomo.
Second, the Member raises the question about the coal project. The fact is, and I use it as illustration, that the choice and option for Canadians to use a form of subsidy for regional development is now constrained by this trade agreement. We know that all kinds of projects in the future will require that kind of investment in the infrastructure of western Canada because of our geography and climate. In fact, the restraint and inhibition put on developing the western coal project as it now stands is one of the most serious and clear examples of how we put a straitjacket on regional development for western Canada from a federal level.
Third, who supports the trade deal? We finished a series of hearings across the West. I can name groups. There are the data processors, a number of agricultural groups, a number of social organizations and coalitions. If the Hon. Member looked at the surveys he will see that one was just conducted in British Columbia last week which pointed out that 60 per cent of the people want an election to determine this matter and a large percentage of women are against it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Eighty per cent think that Americans will benefit.


Lloyd Axworthy: And 80 per cent think the Americans will benefit. I suggest the Hon. Member should consult western Canadians. There are as many people concerned about the trade deal as are in favour of it. There are many industrial groups which know they will be seriously affected. The truckers, the furniture manufacturers, the food processors, the data processors and people in the high technology industries all realize that they have been put in jeopardy.
The Hon. Member mentions lumber. This agreement entrenches an $800 million tax on the Canadian lumber industry. It requires us to impose a penalty on ourselves and it has not been negotiated away. Similarly, the Government gave away in the agreement the right of the fish processing industry to use an export tax to protect processing industries on the West Coast and on the East Coast. The Government had an opportunity to gain an advantage for western Canadians but the Government gave it away. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) and other Members from western Canada have not subjected the deal to the kind of clear analysis required for its economic impact. I submit to this House that if Members look at this in an honest way and look at the figures of the Government's own analysis, western Canada ends up the economic loser under the Mulroney trade deal.
Western Economic Diversification Act


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask the Member who was at one time a Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government what happened to the western development fund. In doing so, I would like to quote from western Canadian newspapers including The Winnipeg Free Press. On October 29, 1980 there is a picture of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was a Cabinet Minister talking about this bonus to Manitoba and speaking about the western development fund of $4 billion which will be used to help the western economy diversify. The article goes on to talk about the types of initiatives that should take place. That was October, 1980.
In January, 1981 a Saskatchewan paper had an article saying that the province is in the dark concerning the western development fund.
Going a bit further, in May, 1981 there is an article in The Financial Post about the western development fund saying that the $4 billion has been put on ice.
In June, 1981 we have the person who normally occupies the Chair, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) asking what has happened to the western development fund. The Hon. Member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry says "It is cynical to say that the western development fund has disappeared or that it is not going to be used.
I can go on month after month, year after year, but since the Member was the man who was supposed to be, to use the quote from The Winnipeg Free Press, "parcelling out the money to western Canada", can he explain to this House what happened to that promise? Here we are in 1988 four years after his Party left, so we cannot blame him for the problems of the last four years, but what happened in 1980? What happened in 1981? What happened in 1982? What happened in 1983? And what happened before September 4, 1984?
I know the Member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry knows there was high unemployment, that the agricultural industry was suffering, that the provinces at that time were quite willing to participate in a western development fund. I do not want to cut the Member off, but I do want to have a chance to answer the question. It seems to me that the $4 billion was a phantom fund. Certainly some money was spent in western Canada but all the hype, the publicity, the PR and all the promises disappeared. Since the Member was the person who was supposed to be parcelling out the money, perhaps he can explain, four years after he is no longer a Minister, what happened to the dollars?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am surprised the Hon. Member who comes from western Canada is so totally and absolutely ignorant about what did happen to it. I would have thought a Member serving his constituents would have spent a little time determining the facts. They are very simple.
Of the $4 billion, $3.5 billion was spent on modernizing the railway system of western Canada. That was based upon consultation with the provinces, with the industry and with the

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
sector. The conclusion was very clear. But the single most important investment required was the total modernization of the railway system. We could not move the products from his riding to ports with the deterioration that was going on in the railway system. The Government of Canada, through the western cabinet committee, made a clear decision to invest $3.5 billion in the modernization of railways. That has taken place and is ongoing at the present time.
1 am really surprised that the Elon. Member does not know that the rest of the money was established as part of a native economic development fund, setting up a bank to allow native groups across western Canada to start their own businesses and self-development projects, many of which are now working. The fact that an Hon. Member with a large native population in his riding does not know about that simply shows that he has not been doing his homework.
While we are on the subject, I would simply point out that in addition to those two major investments, the previous Government also put $1.2 billion into a special regional allocation of which over $550 million was spent in my home Province of Manitoba. That was matched by private sector and provincial moneys, so in fact an additional $2.1 billion was spent by 1984 on a whole range of projects for the development of western Canada.
I would be glad to elaborate on this some more if the Hon. Member really wants to know. I am totally surprised that he would not know by this time, four years later, what an important and effective investment we made in the West.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on debate today, particularly because in the last couple of weeks,
I have seen this particular fund in action. I am quite excited about the projects that are being considered or have been approved by the fund.
We all know that the fund was established because western Canada is a very unique region and its resources of mining, fishing and agriculture are susceptible to international markets. As the market falls internationally, there is a bust and if there are good prices on those commodities, there is a boom. Our Government has said that that is not satisfactory, that we have to diversify the West. Not only that, the Government has said that westerners should say what they want. The people and the businesses of western Canada should have input.
The Government has assigned a western cabinet Minister the responsibility for the western diversification fund. A Deputy Minister is located in western Canada and now western Canadians are making the decisions in Edmonton, a centre of western Canada.
I would like to tell Hon. Members of one of the projects I had an opportunity to announce in my riding in Winnipeg last
week, and that is the Elder's Aquafarm. I think this is a very unique project. There was a malting plant right in the centre of Winnipeg that was not being utilized any longer for environmental reasons. The Elder's Grain Company came up with the idea of converting the tanks used for malting into fish tanks. The company started to proceed with this project and it will cost in excess of some $2 million to achieve it. The interesting part is that there are now fish being raised economically in the centre of Winnipeg. Profits will be made by this private company in association with the western diversification fund.


An Hon. Member:: Winnipeg goldeye?


Clement George Minaker: No, it is not Winnipeg goldeye. The company is raising Arctic char and trout. They anticipate that within a couple of years, over one million pounds of pan-sized fish will be produced by this plant to be sold in western Canada and the United States. This has come about because of the diversification fund which has assisted the company to some degree. I might add that the fund has made a loan that the company will be paying back, it was not an outright grant. This project will create 15 jobs.
Another project the western diversification office is looking at is one which I think is very interesting, namely, a robotics paint shop for commercial aeroplanes. Aeroplanes could be automatically painted by robots without any human contact with the fumes and the deadly gases. The company that is dealing with the western diversification office on this has already designed a robotic shop for the CN Railway yards in Transcona, and that has been a success. The company can now take this knowledge and software and develop it not only in Manitoba but in Saskatchewan. The company would then develop through private enterprise this paint shop for aeroplanes located in Winnipeg which will create many, many jobs. These are the kinds of projects this fund is attracting.
Another area that is being attracted by the fund is the geriatric health field. A company is interested in developing and expanding its location with a product developed in Europe. This company wants to bring this technology to western Canada and is talking about doubling the size of the plant. It is talking about 50 jobs. This is what the diversification fund is doing in my area, and I am sure this is happening in Saskatchewan and elsewhere as well. Our Government believes that westerners should have a chance at these kinds of projects.
Just to give Hon. Members an idea of the interest of the Opposition in this, members of the NDP voted against providing the western diversification fund with an initial $100 million, and they also voted against the $127 million for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. We know what they are interested in.
Liberal Members talk about being interested in diversification in the West. 1 would like to tell Hon. Members about the voting record of Liberal Members. That pattern of voting would turn down the economy of western Canada even further than it would have gone if they had stayed in Government.
March 14, 1988

We know how important the energy sector is for western Canada. In the first session, the Liberals voted against the repeal of the disastrous National Energy Program, including changes to the royalty regime. They voted against the repeal of the incremental oil revenue tax in that first session.
The Liberals voted against competition in air and rail transportation. We all know that transportation plays a very important part in the economy of the western provinces. Our goods must be transported across such a large area. The Liberals voted against increased competition in transportation which would mean lower transportation rates.
The agricultural sector is a very important part of the economy of western Canada as well. The Liberals voted against the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption for Canadian farmers and so did the NDP. They do not realize that farms are the pension plans of farming families. If farmers were taxed on capital gains, they would not find it worth their while to sell the farms. There would not be a changeover within a family unit or within the sector, and we need new blood in the farming community.
The Liberals also voted against the expenditure of $92 million for drought relief for western farmers, Bill C-101, in the first session. This is the kind of interest members of the Liberal Party have in western Canada. No wonder they talk negatively about the western diversification fund. It is good for western Canada, and it would appear from their voting record that they are not interested in western Canada.
The Liberals voted against giving the Canadian Wheat Board $200 million to meet its deficit, Bill C-47 in the second session. Again, they were not interested in western Canada. The Liberals voted against increased foreign investment through the creation of Investment Canada and the dismantling of FIR A in the first session. We know how important foreign investment is. Foreign investment is now encouraged to come to Canada.
The project to which I referred earlier dealing with geriatric health involves foreign investment which is willing to invest and expand in Winnipeg and bring technology with it. I am sure it would not be interested in doing that if FIRA were still in place. That is the kind of attitude members of the Opposition have toward diversification. We are fortunate to some degree in Manitoba that we are probably more diversified than most western provinces. Yet even then, we are still at the mercy of international wheat prices.
We as a Government saw fit to support strongly the farm community in its time of need over the past two years. We injected billions of dollars into that sector, not only in western Canada but in all of Canada, to make it stay alive. We also made sure the towns and communities dependent upon the industry stayed alive.
Western Economic Diversification Act
I was at a meeting with my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), organized by the Keystone Agriculture Organization. Delegate after delegate, all of them farmers, stood up and thanked our Government for taking an interest in agriculture, which is the opposite of what the NDP Government of Manitoba did. We have increased payments to the industry by some 400 per cent since we became the Government. That shows the interest we have in agriculture, particularly in western Canada.
I know you have been signalling that my time is running out, Madam Speaker, so 1 will sit down and let someone else continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I would like to hear more from the Hon. Member, if he would be so kind as to tell us about what the diversification strategy would tend to do in his province. He will recall that I mentioned earlier the payroll tax, which is such a disincentive to employment in Manitoba. Can he tell us anything more about that and what other disincentives there are in Manitoba?


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, I think I gave examples of the type of diversification taking place in my riding. There was, as well, an announcement concerning research work in the engineering department at the University of Manitoba. There has also been some expansion in the plastics industry. We have a big aerospace industry which, in turn, is looking at ways it can diversify and expand.
Obviously the best way, in our opinion, for Manitoba to diversify is through free trade. There is no question about it. Free trade will be very good for Manitoba. That is why I could never understand why my friend from Churchill never supported free trade. Some 6.1 per cent of our export sales to the U.S. are in softwood lumber. I think all of the softwood lumber in Manitoba is in the Churchill riding. Similarly, International Nickel and the mining association completely endorse free trade. Thompson, Manitoba, a great city, relies completely on the sale of minerals, over 80 per cent of which are exported to the U.S. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Hon. Member for Churchill does not support free trade. It is good for Manitoba, particularly his region. I would think the majority of the major employers in his region depend on trade with the U.S. These are the areas where diversification will take place, particularly as free trade comes in.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about economic development in the North. As he knows, the present Government of Manitoba invested incredible amounts of money in hydroelectric development in the North. Can the Hon. Member tell us something about where the market for that hydroelectricity would likely be? If it is the U.S., would the people of Manitoba not benefit from free trade because they would be able to export that electricity to the U.S?

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. As a matter of fact, at present some 6 per cent of our exports to the U.S. consist of hydroelectric energy. There is a potential market there which could result in further hydro-generating stations being built on the Nelson River. There is still something like 3,000 megawatts of energy flowing down the river unused. Clearly, the market to the south is a good one and free trade will open it up and encourage us to export energy to the U.S.
It is ironic that the former NDP Government of Manitoba actually pays a lobbyist in Washington to try to protect that province's present sales to the U.S. There are protectionist Senators who want to restrict or place a tariff on hydro energy exported to the U.S. It is ironic that the NDP Government will pay literally tens of thousands of dollars to a lobbyist in Washington to try to protect existing sales but will not support free trade which opens up the opportunity to sell even more to the U.S.
Then again, when one talks and listens to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), leader of the NDP, one can understand fully. He is opposed to free trade but his riding probably benefits the most from the Auto Pact. Billions of dollars have been invested by the auto industry in Oshawa. On the one hand, he is happy that they are doing this, but on the other hand, when he leaves Oshawa, he says he is against free trade. I cannot understand where the NDP is coming from.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) was saying, this will certainly be the best speech we hear today.


Alan Redway: Don't denigrate your own comments.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Of course, the Deputy Government House Leader was sitting here and encouraged me to get up and speak only because he recognizes the need to have someone speak on behalf of western Canada. The reason that this is necessary is that when the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) got up and asked a hard-hitting question of a fellow Conservative Member, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker), about the payroll tax in Manitoba, the Hon. Member absolutely refused to deal with it. Do you know why? Because his leader in Manitoba, flip-flop Filmon, decided that he will now defend the payroll tax. Here is an opportunity for the Hon. Member to slam the New Democrats on something that is, according to the Hon. Member, very unpopular in Manitoba. Yet the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James does not want to be in the position of attacking his former cabinet colleague in Manitoba, Mr. Filmon, and avoids the question.
This is an opportunity for me to speak on the issues on which the Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) is afraid to speak. However, before I talk about this particular problem I want to add to the comments that I made when the
Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James spoke earlier. We are now in a situation similar to that in October, 1980 when the then Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, who is now in the other place, declared that there was going to be $4 billion for a western development fund. We waited through the rest of 1980, through 1981, through 1982, through 1983, and until the Liberals were defeated in 1984, and the western development fund did not come into being.
The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said that a lot of money was spent on transportation and the rest was spent on native economic development. Yes, there was money spent on western transportation and there was money committed for native economic development, money that was never spent. The former Minister, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, had talked about a western development fund for diversifying the West, a fund which would create new industries in the West and would help all parts of the West to have industrial development. That money never came. In the West we started calling it the phantom fund.
We can understand the nervousness of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry because, as I said earlier, he was the Minister in the Liberal regime and was supposed to parcel out the money. He travelled to B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba talking about how valuable this $4 billion would be for the West. We are still waiting. It never happened. That was a broken promise of the Liberals. That is the sort of thing which makes people in western Canada upset about what happens on this Hill.
In 1980 and 1981 people in the West thought the Government was giving them the shaft. In October, 1980, there was a sense that we had finally been recognized as a region of Canada which would no longer only be involved in growing wheat and exporting natural resources. The talk about a $4 billion western development fund gave a lot of hope to people in the West. As time passed, that hope was taken away and we saw that nothing was going to happen. First there was a retreat. It was no longer $4 billion but became $2 billion. It was no longer to diversify the West, it was, as the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry just said, to help maintain the transportation system in the West. We were not told the truth, and every time a cabinet Minister stood up we found out that there was less and less money for the West and that the money would be used for fewer and fewer programs.
Here we are, four years after the defeat of the Liberals, with another Government, this Government has less than 18 months left in its term of office and last year it promised a western diversification fund. Legislation is before a committee of this House at this time and nothing has happened. People in the West are again asking what is going on. They were promised the money and the provinces have put forward proposals, but the Government did not even introduce the legislation into the House until just over a month ago.
We in the West feel that we are again being given more cynical political promises. We went through that with the
March 14, 1988

former Liberal Government. The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry never defended the West, and his answers in the House today proved that the western development fund was a myth.
The same situation is now occurring with the Conservatives. In answer to questions from his own colleagues, the Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) and the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the Member for Winnipeg-St. James went off on a tirade on free trade because he did not dare to answer anything about the government program. The Member for Winnipeg-St. James, a Manitoba Member, did not talk about any of the proposals made by the Manitoba Government. He did not mention one of those programs which could benefit from the western diversification plan.
We have talked about the $3 billion which the Government of Manitoba has suggested as a priority. The Government of Manitoba said that it would not inflict its political philosophy on the federal Government but would give it an option. In November, 1987, this package was sent to the federal Government explaining a number of proposals which the federal Government could consider if it wanted to spend some of the money from the western diversification fund in Manitoba. As I indicated earlier, Vic Schroeder, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, said that Manitoba was presenting these proposals to the federal Government for its assessment. The Government of Manitoba was willing to meet with the federal Ministers responsible to discuss the programs upon which further action could be taken.
As you know, about two weeks ago the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), the Chairman of the Manitoba PC caucus in this place, said that money was not going to Manitoba because the Howard Pawley Government was attacking the federal Tories and that it was not very nice to attack the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on free trade and say that perhaps the federal Government was not doing a great job in some areas. He implied that that was the reason Manitoba was not getting money. That was not accepted very well in Manitoba and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) went to Manitoba and said that that was not a problem, that the Government was not punishing Manitoba. He said that Manitobans should forget what the Member for St. Boniface, the Chairman of the Conservative caucus, said, that the federal Government is working on it.
Then the election was called in Manitoba, and two days later the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister officially appointed by the Prime Minister to be responsible for Manitoba, says that things will be happening on western diversification in the Province of Manitoba and that they will happen before the election is over. He said that proposals will be approved by Cabinet before April 26, 1988. The Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) says that that sounds good, and it does sound good.
There was reference in the Winnipeg Free Press on Friday to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am not allowed to use his name so I will refer to him as the Minister of
Western Economic Diversification Act
National Health and Welfare or the Member responsible for Manitoba, which is acceptable. However, it is what he said that is not acceptable. He said that he has not seen any proposals on the province's S3 billion list worthy of western diversification funding, but added that individual applications will be approved on their own merit.
Some four months after the Manitoba Government sent the proposals, the Minister responsible for Manitoba says that he has not seen any worthy proposals. Yet at the same time he said that the Government will give money to Manitoba for some of these presumably unworthy proposals before the people of Manitoba vote in six weeks from now. People must be cynical when a cabinet Minister says that, and must be extremely cynical when it is said by a cabinet Minister who did not defend Manitoba when it came to a decision-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: What has that got to do with anything?


Rodney Edward Murphy: We are talking about the western diversification fund. The Member on the far right asks what it is all about. We are talking about the western diversification fund and what the Minister responsible for Manitoba said in Manitoba. Presumably it is relevant, and I am quite willing to let him read the Free Press. If he does not believe what the Minister said, he can talk to him in caucus. Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a quiet, closed room, with no press available, can defend his actions better than he has done so far.
This promise of money from the same Minister who said that none of the projects are worthy is a cynical act. Later I will list those projects to show the importance of some of them. While we may not agree on the specifics of some of the proposals, I am sure you will agree that some of the ideas being suggested have merit.
Before I was interrupted by the Conservative Member opposite, I was saying how people were cynical when the previous Liberals were in power. They thought the western development fund was a fraud and that the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, tried to create an illusion. They were cynical when the money for the western development fund promised by the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry when he was Minister of Transport never appeared.
People in the West have become cynical. It is no wonder that they are cynical when one considers the statement by the Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) that he does not believe the proposals are worthy but will ratify and fund some of them before April 26 of this year. This is the same Government that awarded the CF-18 program to Montreal over what the Government's own official said was a technically better and cheaper proposal from an outfit in Manitoba. This is the same Government that did not hear the cries of the farmers. It was not concerned about the plight of farmers until 5 a.m.-


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: That is a lot of garbage.

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Rodney Edward Murphy: They are a little upset over there. They do not like being reminded of this. No one has ever denied that that phone call took place. At 5 a.m., the Premier of Saskatchewan, in the last weeks of an election campaign, phoned the Prime Minister to plead for some action for the farmers. It is not because the farmers are in trouble-


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: That is a lot of garbage.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -not because they are going bankrupt, because of interest rates or farm foreclosures, but because the Conservative Government of Grant Devine was in trouble. Suddenly a billion dollars is promised.


Elliott William Hardey: That is the most ridiculous poppycock I ever heard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is no wonder that people are cynical when one considers the Government's actions with respect to the CF-18 decision, the plight of the farmers and how the Liberals utilized the western development fund. It is no wonder they are cynical when the Minister for National Health and Welfare makes such a promise during an election campaign in Manitoba. It is no wonder that people do not trust the Government.
The situation facing the farmers was serious long before the Saskatchewan election was called. The problems of the West existed not just in 1987 but also in 1984 when the Government was elected. It took until 1987 for the Government to discover that there were problems in the West and perhaps it should create a new fund with a name other than the western development fund, because the Liberals ruined that. The Government decided to call this new fund the western diversification fund.


Elliott William Hardey: Are you against that program?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Member opposite asks if we are against the program. We are not against the program, but we are saying that we do not want any more phantoms.
In 1980, a Liberal could have asked if we are against the western development fund. We would have said that we are not against the program but we want something real.
We do not want political patronage or favouritism. We do not want the cynicism of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We do not want the threats of the Member from St. Boniface who chaired the Conservative caucus.
Let me list some of the projects for Manitoba. When the Government of Manitoba sent its proposals to the federal Government, I am sure Conservative Members of the House would have seen them as well. They would have seen specific and concrete proposals.
There was a request to meet with the federal Minister responsible, the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
You indicate that I only have one minute left, Madam Speaker, which means I have less time left than the Conservative Member who sat down because he had run out of time.
We talked about a propulsion system centre, upgrading the copper zinc in my riding, the health industry, the energy industry and the rural problem. We talked about grain handling, rural sewer and water infrastructure and a number of different programs.
There is no way I can go through all of those programs in the time I have left. However, I am certainly willing to explain those priorities if the Conservative Member wishes to ask me.
The point is that proposals were made to the federal Government which we are told have not been found worthy by the Minister responsible for Manitoba. We have also been told that he will approve some of them because something is needed in Manitoba to make the federal Tories look good before the next election.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am holding a document containing the resolutions of the fifty-eighth Congress of the Federal New Democratic Party. There are some rather surprising resolutions.
I want to ask the Member about three of the economic resolutions of his own constituency association. One states that the Churchill NDP move that it become the policy of the NDP that the federal Government directly control interest rates. Does that mean the Bank of Canada is no longer to be involved in that process?
Second, the Churchill NDP resolved that the NDP press the Government to regulate the wholesale price of fossil fuels with a view to equalizing cost across the country. How does he believe that will help western Canada?
Third, the resolution submitted by the Hon. Member's constituency is asking for voluntary retirement at the age of 55 years without penalty. Would he tell us whether that means there would be no penalty with respect to a pension normally taken at the age of 65 years, or what does he have in mind?
If he has time, would he please tell us whether his Party was in favour of or opposed to the National Energy Program?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am not afraid to defend the resolutions presented by the membership in my riding. I presume, in the same vein, the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) still believes in the many letters he used to write when he was an opposition Member, for example, his letter in 1981 when he attacked the use of Bruce Rawson as a senior adviser to the Government on western Canadian affairs. That was in 1981 when the Liberals were in power. We also have the Hon. Member's long article attacking the appointment of Mr. Rawson. Presumably, Mr. Rawson, in the mind of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, was an unworthy person for that appointment. We do know, and I know the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona knows,
March 14, 1988

that the Conservatives appointed that same Mr. Rawson to be the senior person with respect to the western diversification fund.
I do not want to accuse the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona for having different thoughts now that he is on the government side than he did when he was in the Opposition with respect to people, programs and philosophies because I know that that same Member has held different views as a Conservative. Sometimes he thinks the Government is doing a good job for the West and other times he is appalled at the job the Conservatives are doing for the West. He is appalled to the extent that he refuses to go to caucus meetings of his own Party. He refuses to meet with his fellow Conservative Members of Parliament. So I am not concerned that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona says one thing about Mr. Rawson in 1981 and says the exact opposite in this House today. He does have a record of inconsistent statements.
With respect to the three specific resolutions, I am quite willing to talk about those, although they do not deal with western diversification, nor with the problems and proposals of people from western Canada. I wish the Hon. Member had asked me a question on that. I think it is very important for Members from different provinces to hear what people in the West are saying. First, the Hon. Member seemed to imply that there was something wrong with my riding association saying that we should do something to control interest rates. My riding association, like many other riding associations, whether New Democratic, Liberal or Conservative, are very concerned about interest rates because we have seen farm foreclosures and small industries going under. We have seen people lose their homes. 1 make absolutely no apology. For that matter, I am proud that members of my constituency association are saying we have to do something to control interest rates.
That does not mean there is no role for the central bank. It does mean that the federal Government has a role to play as well. We have to take a look at the situation. We do not want to go back to the days of the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark) where interest rates were at 18 per cent, 19 per cent and 20 per cent. What my riding association is saying is that there are other things to consider than what the Chairman of the Bank of Canada thinks. He may be concerned about inflation, which tends to be the main preoccupation of the Bank of Canada, but there are people in the regions, on farms, people in small business, men and women right across this country, who are very concerned about keeping their businesses operating and interest rates have killed and maimed many small businesses.
Despite the implications made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, I think a resolution saying we should look at controlling interest rates is a damn good thing for this country.
Second, the Hon. Member referred to controlling the price of fossil fuels. Let me explain why that resolution was introduced in 1985. For his benefit, I will point out that I represent
Western Economic Diversification Act
a northern riding where most of the communities are 300, 400, 500 or 600 miles north of the City of Winnipeg. The people in my riding buy gasoline just as do people right across this country. However, they noticed that if they drive to a community to the south, they pay 36 cents a litre for gas, if they go 50 miles north, they pay 40 cents a litre for gas. If they go 150 miles north, they pay 50 cents a litre for gas, and if they go further north they pay more than that. The City of Thompson, Manitoba decided to abandon the commercial dealerships. It decided not to pay those high prices that Esso, Texaco or Shell insisted on. The people of that city were going to put together a gas co-op. The community of Thompson discovered they could sell gas for 10 cents a litre less than the commercial operators were charging. The City of Thompson could do that quite easily because it had a fairly large population. It had a population of 14,000 people and all of them wanted to set up their own gas co-op and be able to sell gas for a lot less. However, that is not so easy for the people in smaller towns.
The people in smaller towns went to Shell and to the other companies and told them that Thompson, Manitoba, 250 miles away, was selling gas for 6 cents, 7 cents or 8 cents a litre less than people were paying in The Pas or in some of the other communities. They wanted to know why. We have an oligarchy in this country which basically controls the wholesale distribution and price of gas.
I notice that the Member who asked the question has disappeared. I think the answer overwhelmed him. The northern communities realized they were not in a situation where there was free enterprise and competition. They were being told by the local dealer that he would love to sell gas to them at a cheaper price but he could not because Shell and the other gas companies would not let him. So the people in my riding said we should have some system put in place which allowed for the freight cost into the North because it does cost more when you ship oil and gas to the North. They found out that they could move gas 450 miles into Thompson and still sell it for 10 cents a litre less than what the private enterprise competition was charging.
I can understand why the people in my riding put forward a resolution saying, yes, we should do something to regulate fossil fuel prices so that people do not get ripped off, and I support the people in my riding association who put that forward. I suspect that most of the people in a producing province and in a producing city such as Alberta would also support the same type of resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I was about to say that it is a pleasure to participate in the April 26 Manitoba election campaign.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That's not true. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) avoided it.

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: It seemed as if we were getting into the preliminary skirmishes, but then of course we do not know who the players are and that may be premature.
It has been stated by Members on both sides of the House that others have talked about western diversification, but it is only now and only recently that something substantial is being done about it. I can recall attending a national industry meeting in Winnipeg in April, 1982, and having the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, speak on his vision of western Canada. Those who were not amused were bemused. It seemed to be an awakening on the road to Damascus on the part of this remarkable Canadian. Of course, as the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has so aptly put it, that was the beginning and the end of it. There was double-tracking, which I think was credited to the Liberals' account. But there was more double-talking than there was double-tracking.
We are now doing something about it. I should point out that the Government did not wait until the legislation appeared in the House to act on western diversification. In fact, not long after the announcement was made in Edmonton on August 4, 1987, applications began to flood in. In fact, there was so much interest and so much pre-activity shown with respect to the issue of western diversification that I am told there was a considerable amount of staff burn-out and staff turnover in the beginning weeks.
Frankly, while it was known that there was western entrepreneurial genius and outstanding ideas within western Canada, no one quite estimated the quality, depth and volume of that activity. It is now six months since the initiative was announced. I am happy to report that based on my experience it is operating very well. The office in Edmonton is running well. Many projects have been approved or are in the final assessment phase. Others, for various reasons, have been sent back for modification or, in fact, have been rejected for not meeting the criteria. I hope that there will be some time to touch upon those criteria.
There are quite a few distinguishing characteristics of the western diversification initiative that set it apart from previous initiatives of previous Governments and, indeed, initiatives of provincial Governments, in that it is designed to top up, to facilitate, to lever, to be last dollar in. In other words, it is the final achiever of projects that are otherwise worthy.
I could touch on one or two examples of initiatives that went through prior to the establishment of western diversification. I think of the western transportation diversification fund, which was a last gasp effort of the previous Government but which we have acted on.
I point out that in the cultural field, in which I have more than a passing interest, I had the privilege of participating just last Tuesday at the ribbon-cutting of a new $7 million motion picture production studio in my constituency which was enabled in part through a grant from WTID.
This is quite a departure in philosophy from that of previous Governments, as I have mentioned. We have stopped the process of throwing dollars at the sunset. That is a significant departure. If there is one thing which rankles the populace, it
is the idea of keeping alive an industry which should not be kept alive through government intervention. Indeed, a great deal of research, planning and consultation went into the establishment of the western diversification fund and the western diversification office. At the request of at least two provincial Governments the announcement of the initiative was delayed on two occasions so that the provincial Governments could have their proper input. I know that that occurred. I know that the initiative will succeed with greater efficacy because of that consultation and that input.
There are a good many examples of value added in the traditional fields of oil and gas and agriculture in my own Province of Alberta which had been enhanced or were in the process of being enhanced. There are a great many others in the process. But it is in the field of research and technology that I think we can take greatest pride in some of the achievements that have already gone ahead in the Province of Alberta.
Some of these are tangential to western diversification, within the umbrella of the initiative that is, and others are directly within the umbrella. For example, there was established in April of 1986 the Canada-Alberta subsidiary agreement on northern development, a $40 million program offering assistance in three key areas: expanded diversity of economic development in the North; assistance for northern residents to develop and access employment opportunities; and facilitation of the development of community and regional infrastructure in order to improve the long-term viability of business and industrial initiatives.
As you are well aware, Madam Speaker, our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) chairs a committee which is instrumental in striving to bring western Canadian low-sulphur coal to Ontario for the use of Ontario Hydro. The committee is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and consists of Premiers Getty, Vander Zalm, Devine and Peterson. The objective is to improve the economic attractiveness of western Canadian coal so that Ontario coal users will make commercial decisions to increase their use of Canadian coal.
As well, there have been a number of initiatives undertaken by the Government of Alberta which is pushing forward high technology and research at the Alberta Microelectronics Centre, a non-profit organization located at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary. The fabrication facility is in the northern city. The design facility is in the Stampede city. That centre will assist Alberta's growing electronics industry with the design and manufacture of leading-edge products which can be marketed worldwide. The Government of Alberta, I am happy to note, has contributed $14 million over three years for the centre starting in 1985.
The Alberta Laser Institute, which many of my colleagues are following with considerable interest, was established to work closely with private sector companies to transfer technology involving materials processing, laser sensors and the medical and electronic application of lasers to improve productivity, competitiveness and new product development. Again, I congratulate the Government of Alberta for contributing $5 million over five years.
March 14, 1988

So far there have been two major announcements under western diversification within the Province of Alberta. There was the $9.5 million participation in Daishowa Canada Limited, which will construct a major greenfield bleached kraft pulpmill near Peace River. That mill will cost more than $500 million and will create 630 mill and woodland jobs and 1,260 indirect jobs. The provincial Government is co-operating by assisting with rail and road access and other infrastructure.
This mill is unique because it is based on the use of aspen, or, as we used to call it, poplar, which is in some of our Alberta forests and which is certainly regarded by Alberta homesteaders and those who are trying to grow gardens as something of a weed. But it is now being put to proper use. I know that the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) has been very much involved in the encouragement and the development of research in the use of aspen, which is no longer a weed but a distinct asset.
I had the opportunity just two weeks ago to tour a facility in the constituency of my friend, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). The proprietor of the business happens to be a resident of my constituency. This is typical of the kind of world-scale research that is going on in the Province of Alberta, which will overcome the great handicap of distance and absence of markets which has plagued and hindered the diversification of the western economy heretofore. This particular facility is owned by local interests and collaborates with Japanese interests. It is known as Synphar Chemicals and is associated with the Taiho conglomerate of Japan. The work in which they are engaged relates to the extraction of natural compounds from plants and exotic seeds to substitute for the worrisome products derived from coal tar, which are used extensively in cosmetics and are unfortunately used in some food additives.
This research is going forward. At the end of the tour I said to the proprietor: "Are you looking for something from the Government?" He said: "No, Sir, we are not. We are going to do it on our own". I am happy to say that there are some situations which do not require government intervention. However, I am happy to say that western diversification will assist those who do, where it is critical to the success or failure of the venture.
Other work done by Norac Technologies Inc. relates to the extraction of natural compounds from plants and exotic seeds to substitute for the worrisome products derived from coal tar, which are used extensively in cosmetics and are unfortunately used in some food additives.
I was a little perturbed to hear the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) criticizing a distinguished public servant, the Deputy Minister who, by the way, is designated to reside in Edmonton. I think it is unique in Canadian legislation that the head office of an authority would be established outside the national capital region. Perhaps the Atlantic authority has a similar designation in its legislation. The Deputy Minister in question, to whom the Hon. Member for Churchill referred, I am happy to say is-and this is not his
Western Economic Diversification Act
only qualification for the job-a resident of the constituency of Edmonton South. I found that he and his staff have been exceedingly helpful, despite the tremendous volume of work they must do in sorting and assessing various proposals. They have been extremely helpful when my colleagues and I have been asked to refer to the office to determine the status of any particular project.
The people in the WDO office work long hours. They are committed to the success of western diversification. They are co-operative with provincial officials and with those who bring forward proposals.
I wish to touch on another role of the western diversification initiative, that is, the path-finding role. There are many other government programs which can be made applicable to our western situation. I am pleased that the WDO in Edmonton- and I am sure it is the same in the other offices across western Canada-has the capability of seeking out government programs, be they in the cultural field, telecommunications, agriculture, or whatever application, and of bringing the proposers and the doers together.
I mentioned that heretofore there have been two major announcements under WDO in the Province of Alberta. I touched briefly on the Daishowa project, which was announced on February 8 in a joint announcement by the federal and provincial Governments and the Japanese-based company.
In addition, I should like to take a moment or two of the time of the House to touch on the Centre for Frontier Engineering Research. It was my privilege to have worked with the project since the fall of 1984 to try to assist in bringing it to fruition. It is a remarkable institute. The concept of the Centre for Frontier Energy Research is a dual one. The interest in frontier engineering research is reflected in an industry-driven program aimed at materials design and constructed for Arctic and offshore energy development. The commitment which the centre has made to technological frontiers can be seen in its program of ground-breaking research focused on conventional, heavy oil, and oil sands operations.
The areas of research are two-offshore structures and down hole tubular systems. In addition, the Centre for Frontier Energy Research has a mandate including a commitment to networking, the movement of current technical information through industry. CFER Atlantic operating out of the technical university of Nova Scotia has also been developing well. The proposed laboratories are now properly funded and are proceeding well under the construction program that was laid out for them when the project was announced on December 22, 1987.
The joint federal-provincial commitment is $18 million. The federal Government will provide a $7.75 million capital contribution, and $1 million of that will be matched by CFER through industry supporters. The Alberta Government will provide a total of $6.75 million, which includes a $4.5 million capital grant, $1.25 million toward operating funds through to 1993, and a $1 million maximum interest subsidy. The province will also provide a loan guarantee of up to $5 million.

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister who participated in the announcement, the facility will increase Canada's competitiveness in world markets and increase opportunities for Canadian engineering firms to compete on a worldwide basis. The engineering profession, the consulting industry in the Province of Alberta, was decimated through the depression of the early 1980s. We were at risk of losing the critical core of that profession, a profession truly in the forefront of world competence in the areas of civil engineering, petroleum engineering, and soil mechanics. Institutes such as the Centre for Frontier Engineering Research and others to come will do a great deal to provide a sea anchor to guard against that loss of competence and that loss of a critical mass.
I was pleased to note, at the announcement of the establishment of CFER, that the frontiers are not limited to our western and northern frontiers and that indeed there is an Atlantic dimension to the capability of the institute.
I want to dwell for just a moment on one or two aspects of the western diversification project so that there is some clarity as to what kind of assistance is available and what kind of projects are to be funded. One key feature is that service industries and resource-related industries are eligible for funding. The definition of who may apply has been expanded to include non-profit business organizations.
Examples of the kinds of projects which will be considered for funding-and I stress the word "considered"-are those in the general area of business projects or activities that would involve the initiation, promotion, or expansion of enterprises.
In addition, projects which contribute to the enhancement of the business climate or the development of business infrastructure will be considered, as will proposals for the modernization or expansion of existing industrial facilities.
I have dwelt at some length on research and development, another prime area of interest of the western diversification initiative. Projects involving systems or software development, new product identification, and the development of productivity improvement will be eligible as well.
We also have an eye to the export opportunities of the nation. Projects and activities with the capability of market development, whether it be domestic or international, fall within the terms of reference of the proposals.
Of course there are certain kinds of enterprises which are not eligible. Briefly, in the time remaining, I should caution that the program will not fund projects where the economic or employment benefits would apply primarily outside the western provinces. Projects designed to replace existing capital or operating requirements of government Departments of any of the three levels of government are not eligible for support. The program will not assist projects designed to create municipal infrastructure or foster urban redevelopment. In the case of commercial or industrial projects, the program cannot
support proposals where the applicant's net equity position is unreasonably low.
I appreciate this opportunity to touch on some aspects of western diversification. I, for one, am delighted and proud that the Government of the day has seen fit to bring in this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there any questions or comments? Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate because the people of Manitoba welcome the proposal of the Conservative Government to establish this western diversification program. The Premier of Manitoba welcomed the agreement and indicated that Manitoba would co-operate fully and that Manitoba expected to get its fair share of the $1.2 billion which we were led to believe the program would have in the way of funds to be allocated over the next five years.
It is not surprising that people in Manitoba, as people in the four western provinces and in Atlantic Canada, were vitally interested in this proposal of the federal Government because people in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada have felt for a long time that they have been treated as second class citizens. The major benefits in this country of ours have gone to central Canada, to the people and the industries of Ontario and Quebec. It was felt that western Canada was looked upon as a resource hinterland for central Canada and that attempts to diversify the have-not regions of Canada have, to a large extent, failed. The first real thought given to this problem was that given by the Rowell-Sirois Commission in the 1930s which investigated these regional disparities and provided the rationale for the transfer of federal payments to the poorer provinces.
We have had a number of programs whose design and intent was to help the poorer provinces of this country move up and improve their economies so people in those areas would be provided with a better standard of living. We saw in the period of the former Conservative Government headed by Mr. Diefenbaker the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a cabinet Minister at that time, who helped to establish the Agricultural Rehabilitation Development Act, ARDA, as it is known, in 1961. Its purpose was to take marginal farmland and marginal farming operations out of production and put them into other activities. In the Pearson and Trudeau Governments we had the development of programs such as DEVCO, DREE and DRIE. These have had some success, but to a large extent the have-not provinces of Canada and the people in those provinces still have a standard of living far lower than the people in the
March 14, 1988

Province of Ontario and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Province of Quebec.
One inquiry into the effectiveness of DREE was conducted by the Economic Council of Canada in its 1977 study entitled Living Together. The Council found that DREE expenditures were significant enough to measure against other economic activity in only one region, that of Atlantic Canada. The council concluded that there was suggestive evidence that DREE had helped to provide half of the additional jobs required in the 1970-75 period caused by decreased outmigration and a reduction in the employment rate of about 1 per cent. In other provinces, such as Quebec, Saskatchewan and elsewhere, no reduction in disparity was measurable, most likely because the DREE expenditure was so small on a per capita basis as to be unmeasurable. It did not say that DREE was immune from criticism.
DREE began as a federal initiative, became a conduit for funds for provincial projects and then became a federal agency again. These projects led to political battles between the provinces and the federal Government as to which initiative should be taken. Of course, federal Governments, Liberal or Conservative, wanted a higher profile in western Canada. These arguments were not surprising.
There is a rationale and a convincing one for the need for joint federal-provincial initiatives if regional development plans are to be successful. Nowhere is this more true than in the Province of Manitoba where the provincial Government has taken a highly successful approach to encouraging job creation through its job fund activities. The result of those activities and because of the well diversified economy in Manitoba, the unemployment rates in Manitoba for the last five or six years have been continuously either the lowest of any province or the second lowest.
It is an unexpected but unfortunate fact that throughout the 1980s the mineral, grains and petroleum markets, so important in Saskatchewan and Alberta, were uniformly depressed. Yet, here is where we get to the problem that we see about the nature of this western diversification fund and the $1.2 billion which is to be allocated. We see that certain provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have already been able to get approved, through this fund, tens of millions of dollars, while Manitoba has received virtually nothing. It is not surprising that there was a great deal of anger and hostility when the Conservative Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), in explaining why Manitoba has so far received so little in approvals as compared to other provinces said, as reported in The Winnipeg Free Press, on February 29:
If you want to work co-operatively, it doesn't help to criticize. It isn't helpful
to engage in fed bashing.
Many Manitobans, and I think quite correctly, took exception and became angry by what they considered to be an attempt by the Member from St. Boniface-hopefully he was not speaking for the Conservative Government of Canada-to
Western Economic Diversification Act
blackmail the people of Manitoba and to blackmail the Government of Manitoba. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) reacted, and I believe he spoke for most Manitobans when he made a statement on March 1 in response as follows:
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.
That is how the people of Manitoba, regardless of political Party, feel, and it is the way they should feel.
Another suggestion was that because there was an NDP Government in Manitoba, which is supposedly opposed to the private sector, all the proposals it made, and it made many proposals, were laughed at because they totalled billions of dollars. Manitoba did not expect to get billions of dollars. However, what it did expect, and what Manitobans, regardless of Party, will demand, is its fair share of the funds which will be allocated through the western diversification fund.
Another suggestion was that the reason Manitoba did not get approval was that it had an NDP Government which was not friendly or supportive of the private sector and all the proposals made by Manitoba were for government programs. That is not true either and I want to put on the record a few examples of the proposals which were brought forward and which have not yet been approved by the Conservative Government.
In the City of Flin Flon in northwestern Manitoba, the Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting Co. has a copper smelter and a zinc refinery. That company has been operating in Flin Flon for more than 50 years. It provides direct employment for over 2,000 workers in Flin Flon, Leaf Rapids and Snow Lake, Manitoba, and Creighton, Saskatchewan. That plant needs major modernization so that it can be more productive and competitive with other operations in other countries and so that it can meet the new environmental standards which have been set. We are talking about a $ 100-million modernization program. The Government of Manitoba expects the entire cost of that modernization to come from the federal Government through the western diversification fund, and this is a project which would meet any criteria which any Government would set.
There was a proposal for an agricultural biotechnology and training consortium made by the University of Manitoba, the

March 14, 1988
Canada Pension Plan
Brandon University and the Assiniboine Community College, in co-operation with agricultural organizations and the private sector, and I emphasize the private sector. This proposal is to set up a consortium to focus on developing applications in agricultural biotechnology and providing agricultural management training.
One does not have to be an expert and read technical journals, one need only read The New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek or any of the financial newspapers published in Canada to know that almost every week new discoveries are made in the field of agriculture so that tomatoes, potatoes or the like will be made resistant to the pests which attack them. Canada is lagging very seriously behind in research in this area.
A proposal came from the Government of Manitoba to set up a biotechnology and training consortium, and given the difficulties western Canadian farmers are having competing for the sale of grain and other products with countries which subsidize very heavily their agricultural industries, the management abilities of Manitoba farmers are more and more important than ever. This consortium would help with that, but again there has been no response from the federal Government.
A rural industrial project was proposed by the Manitoba Government to its federal counterparts. It wanted to designate a site in a rural area of Manitoba where there is very little industrial activity and high unemployment rates on which would be established a $60-million oriented strandboard plant. That plant would provide 130 direct jobs plus employment in gathering and hauling the wood to the site. Of course, government funding was required, but the bulk of the funding would come from the private sector. Again, there has been no response from the federal Government.
There was a proposal that the Red River Community College, the large community college established in the City of Winnipeg, have its learning resource centre expanded. The present facility which was built some years ago was built to accommodate about 2,700 students. It now services over 5,000 full-time and several thousand part-time students.
I do not have to remind Hon. Members of the tremendous revolutions that are taking place in computers and their use and the need to expand the software which services those computers. It seems to me that the community college proposal has merit which no one can dispute. It is the high technology areas where we will find the jobs we will need for young people entering the job market and for those who will be displaced as traditional manufacturing industries become more efficient or obsolete. That is the kind of project we need, and we need it now.
A series of reports have been written as a result of studies done in Ontario and articles appearing in various journals telling us how badly we are doing in training Canadians, both young Canadians who will enter the job market in the next year or two and adults who are finding their jobs have become
obsolete. We are not doing the job which is required. There was a report in The Globe and Mail either yesterday or today which said that many of our manufacturing industries which are moving into more highly sophisticated operations are telling us that we do not have the skilled workers required. We do not have the tool and die makers, the machinists or the people qualified in the newest electronics jobs. This proposal came from the Government of Manitoba that the community college be expanded and modernized so that it could do the job required. What did we hear from the federal Government? Nothing.
The people of Manitoba want to know why this situation is continuing. They want to know why these very practical proposals which have come from the Government of Manitoba have been ignored and downgraded by the federal Government.
One of the specific proposals made by the Government of Manitoba concerned increased procurement by the federal Government in the West. This is one area in which the Conservatives have consistently promised they will do better because this is something they consistently harped on when they were in opposition. I was here on many occasions when western Conservative Members and Atlantic Conservative Members complained loudly, and justifiably, that under the Liberal Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time for his intervention has now expired. A period of questions or comments could follow Private Members' Business.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADA PENSION PLAN MEASURE TO AMEND
John R. Rodriguez: that Bill C-250, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (survivor's pension), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I should start off with the genesis of Bill C-250 which seeks to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act, Section 44(l)(d).
The reason I presented this Bill, and have been presenting it since 1979, and it is a very tragic reason, is because of a 40-year old miner who was killed in the mines in Sudbury. After the tragedy of burying the miner, his spouse, having to get on
March 14, 1988

with her life with her dependants, went to the local Canada Pension Plan office to apply for survivor's benefits for herself and her dependants under the Act. She filled out the form and the person dealing with her said he was sorry but she did not qualify for survivor's benefits. She asked why she did not qualify for survivor's benefits. He said she did not qualify because she was 34 years of age.
Under the Canada Pension Plan Act, Section 44(l)(d), any surviving spouse under the age of 35 is not eligible to collect survivor's benefits. Not a penny. Here we have a widow with two dependent children, who had not been in the workforce since she had been married, being told that she would get at that time about $80 a month for each of the children and she would have to go on welfare.
There is another example of an older gentleman who went to Poland. He met and fell in love with a young woman and brought her back to Canada. He was in his late 50s, she in her late 20s. They had one child before he dropped dead of a heart attack one day. She was ineligible to collect survivor's benefits under the Act. Again, the invocation of Section 44(1 )(d). What does that section say? It says:
a survivor's pension shall be paid to the surviving spouse, as determined pursuant to this Act, of a deceased contributor who has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period if, the surviving spouse has
(i)	reached 65 years of age, or
(ii)	in the case of a surviving spouse who has not reached 65 years of age,
(A) had at the time of the death of the contributor reached 35 years of age.
She had not reached the age of 35 at the time of the death of her spouse and she would not be eligible for survivor's benefits. I would like to say unequivocally that that is discrimination based on age.
This issue was looked at by the parliamentary task force on pension reform chaired by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). The task force, after considering a large number of proposals and briefs, concluded that before comprehensive changes to the Canada Pension Plan survivor's benefits could be recommended, further study was required. That further study was done. A White Paper was issued which looked at the Canada Pension Plan and specifically at the question of survivor's provisions. I just want to read from page 39 of that White Paper published in September, 1987, just last fall. It said:
Survivors who are under age 35 at the time of the death of their spouse, and who are not caring for a dependent child of the contributor, are not eligible for a survivor benefit until they reach age 65, unless they are disabled or become disabled.
We know that is what is provided for. This White Paper recognizes the discriminatory nature of Section 44(1 )(d) and recommends that the surviving spouse ought to get the Canada Pension Plan benefit irrespective of age.
The report of the parliamentary committee on equality rights, in 1985, on page 40, under the subtitle "Benefits for Surviving Spouses" had this to say:
Canada Pension Plan
Although CPP benefits for surviving spouses are not restricted to female spouses, it seems clear that these eligibility rules are based on assumptions about the dependency of women that may no longer be valid and that are unfair on their face. For example, the exclusion of spouses under 35 years of age who are neither disabled nor have dependent children is probably based on the theory that surviving spouses in their twenties and early thirties usually have little difficulty in finding employment or remarrying.
That committee recognized as well the discriminatory nature of Section 44(l)(d). It goes on to recommend that it be removed from the Act.
It seems to me that in that Act, when it deals with surviving spouses, there are other discriminatory provisions. If the surviving spouse is under 45 but over 35, they get a partial pension. They do not get the full pension. Their benefits are reduced by 1 1 /20th for each month he or she is under 45. This works out to a pension of roughly $145.18.
The age provisions are clearly discriminatory and are contrary to the Charter of Rights. In fact, this whole question of survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan Act are under review by the parliamentary committee which is studying the White Paper on survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. I would hope that the committee, too, will recognize the discriminatory nature of Section 44(1 )(d). In fact, I have been informed that both the provinces and the federal Government recognize that 44(1 )(d) is indeed discriminatory. Therefore, why do we have to wait?
Canada Pension Plan officials in my riding told a woman who was under 35 who appeared before them seeking survivor's benefits that they could not give her the benefit but that she should take the issue to the Human Rights Commission and appeal through the process. We all know that to go through the courts is a very costly and protracted route. I do not know where poor people would get the money to challenge Section 44(1 )(d) of the Canada Pension Plan Act. If what I have heard is true, that the federal Government, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and his provincial counterparts have recognized the discriminatory nature of 44(l)(d), then surely with that kind of unanimity and with determination of purpose it would be easy to bring in an amendment to the Act.
I am sure that Members on this side of the House would be only too pleased to expedite an amendment to the Act which would create justice and remove an obviously discriminatory section of the Act. Incidentally, the reason I brought Bill C-250 forward was the very fact that we could expedite it and not have to put poor people through a whole process of legalisms which could go on indefinitely.
As an aside to the main purpose of this Bill, I have discovered that the federal Government has made certain changes to the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. These were all improvements to give recipients an increase in their pensions. However, private sector employers have been grabbing the money instead of allowing the

March 14, 1988
Canada Pension Plan
pensioners to get the increases. Even more outrageous, provincial Governments have been grabbing the increases which the federal Government has granted to those who are in receipt of disability pensions. The Province of Ontario is blatant in its grabbing from the pockets of the disabled and the poor. It is reducing the community and social services benefits to the poor. The Government of Ontario is reaching on to the table and taking the bread and meat right off the tables of poor people. I think that is a disgrace.
I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about this, but all I hear back is that they are discussing it with the provinces. Well, that is not good enough. They have been discussing it with the provinces for two years and that is not good enough for the poor who have an entitlement to a disbility pension.
I ask Members not to let this Bill go the way of other Private Members' Bills which are debated for an hour and then talked out. I ask Members not to talk the Bill out, to take this opportunity to make a strike for what is right and just. For once, let this Bill go to committee, especially since the Government is in agreement that Section 44(l)(d) is indeed discriminatory.
I appeal to Members to let the Bill go. Do not talk the Bill out but let it go to committee so that we can eventually have the Act amended. I will not take credit for it. If the Government wants the credit for it, that is fine with me. I am prepared to erase C-250 from the front of the Bill and put the Minister's name there in lights. I am just a humble Member in this House. I do not seek the glory of having an amendment made to the Act. The Government can have the credit. All I want is justice for the poor people of the country who have been discriminated against, particularly women upon whom it has fallen harder than it has on men.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and I would like to begin by saying to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), whose Private Members' Bill we are discussing today, that while I might question his contention that he is just a humble Member of the House, because I think he is far more than whatever those words may imply, I do not in any way question his sincerity. I would applaud him for that and for his persistence in ensuring that this issue, which has been brought before the House on many occasions, remains before the House. In fact, I think he understands that the Government is as committed as is he to addressing the principles of the Bill before us.
As most Members know, the proposal set forth in Bill C-250 is an important and topical one. The issues of age discrimination and other equality considerations in the context of the Canada Pension Plan are an active concern of the Government at this time. In fact, on September 24, 1987, a consultation paper on survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan was tabled in the House of Commons and was referred to the
standing committee. We are still eagerly looking forward to the standing committee's report.
In other words, Madam Speaker, we are now in the process of a major review of Canada Pension Plan survivor provisions. This review was undertaken so that federal and provincial Governments, which share jurisdiction over the Canada Pension Plan, could determine the most appropriate way to bring the plan's survivor benefits directly in line with equality provisions under the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in line with changes in family structure and other social changes that have taken place in Canada since the CPP's inception some 22 years ago.
When the Canada Pension Plan was being designed in the early 1960s the majority of Canadian families were one-earner families. Legislators therefore decided that when a contributor died a portion of his or her Canada Pension Plan retirement pension would be paid to the surviving spouse in certain circumstances. The benefit levels and eligibility requirements for survivor pensions were based on specific criteria which reflected the then current assumption that the majority of married women were financially dependent on their spouse for life. These dependency criteria included the recipient's age, the presence of dependent children or a disability, and a survivor's eligibility for other benefits under the plan.
During the pension reform discussions of recent years numerous Canadians have indicated that they share the Hon. Member's dissatisfaction with the Canada Pension Plan's existing structure for survivor benefits. Many have suggested that the dependency criterion has become outmoded and arbitrary and may be discriminatory in light of the Charter. There has been a growing perception, moreover, that application of the current survivor benefit eligibility criteria have resulted too often in a level of income protection inconsistent with the situation of Canadians who have become widowed.
As Hon. Members are aware, major changes to the Canada Pension Plan do require the approval of two-thirds of the Canadian provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population, as well as the approval of Parliament. Federal and provincial legislators did reach a consensus on a comprehensive restructuring of Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits in time for such a reform to be included in Bill C-l 16.
Nevertheless, a federal-provincial working group of officials was established expressly for the purpose of re-examining the role of CPP survivor provisions in light of equality provisions under the Charter, as well as in view of growing pressure to improve benefit adequacy and the over-all context of social changes. In pursuing this task, the working group reviewed the substantial body of recommendations and other input which had already been presented to legislators and which has remained a matter of official record. The consultation paper on CPP survivor benefits, which presents a comprehensive
March 14, 1988

proposal for reform, and to which I and my hon. friend made reference earlier, was developed as a direct result of this study.
In essence, the proposals outlined in the consultation paper have provided us with a sound but flexible basis for public discussion and the means for determining whether the requisite consensus for a major reform of CPP survivor provisions exists or, alternatively, can be arrived at among both legislators and the public at large.
The consultation paper proposes a new benefit structure for future survivors that responds to the equality provisions under the Charter and to projected social changes. It also proposes improvements to the existing CPP structure to ensure that current survivors would also be treated in accordance with the Charter.
Finally, it proposes increases in benefits payable on behalf of children. Eligibility for CPP survivor benefits under the new structure, therefore, would not be based directly on considerations of age, disability and family status, as was the case during the first two decades of this plan's existence.
The consultation paper's proposals recognize instead, that financial difficulties may be experienced by surviving spouses of all ages, and that such difficulties may be greater and longer lasting when young children are present. The paper recognizes that a Canadian family's subsistence today is increasingly based on the gainful employment of both spouses and on the pension protection accumulated by each.
Reflecting these circumstances, the paper proposes to pay substantially higher monthly benefits concentrated over the difficult years of adjustment following a spouse's death, normally five years, rather than much lower lifetime payments. If implemented, this proposed new structure would initially apply only to future generations of younger Canadians as they experience widowhood. In recognition that all widowed individuals face a degree of difficulty following bereavement, the proposed new structure would provide surviving spouses with benefits on an equal basis, in accordance with the deceased spouse's CPP record of earnings.
Survivors who are carrying for dependent children would, however, be eligible for benefits over a longer period. As well, the consultation paper proposes important increases for CPP benefits payable in respect of dependent children of a deceased CPP contributor.
As I have stated, the consultation paper also proposes that benefits under the existing structure be substantially modified. Such changes would apply to current beneficiaries, as well as to the current older generation of Canadians who, in the event of being widowed at a future date, would have the option of choosing coverage under either the improved existing structure or the proposed new benefit structure.
Improvements to the current structure would include doubling the flat rate portion of CPP survivor benefits payable to all survivors under age 65. As well, the reductions which currently apply to survivors younger than age 45 would be
Canada Pension Plan
eliminated, and survivors who, to date, have been denied CPP survivor payments because they were younger than age 35 when their spouse died-the Hon. Member referred to such a tragic case-would become eligible to receive benefits under the plan. Finally, children's benefits would have the same improvements that would be implemented under the proposed new benefit structure.
With regard to Bill C-250, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt hopefully will be assured that Canadians are already in full agreement with his sentiments.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that federal and provincial legislators should not and cannot amend the CPP in haste. As I have explained, major amendments to the plan require a high level of consensus among the Canadian public and among legislators at both levels.
The federal Government, nevertheless, is committed to making changes as soon as such a consensus can be achieved. We may expect, therefore, to proceed with further consultation and negotiation among concerned Canadians, as soon as the Government has received the report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-250. When examining the premise upon which the legislation is being suggested by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I find that the basic intent of the Bill is to eliminate discrimination from the current provisions of the Canada Pension Plan in relation to widow's benefits or survivor's benefits. The notion of eliminating discrimination on the basis of age is a laudable one theoretically. However, one can see that even in the context of the Bill itself, it still has an unequal application. To my knowledge, the effect of passing his amendment would be to say that any person who is a survivor would be entitled to a benefit. Presumably, that person would be entitled to a benefit until the age 65 when a different benefit package would kick in. Quite clearly, even with that cut-off point, there is discrimination on the basis of age.
While eliminating discrimination on the basis of age may sound good in principle, there may be practical reasons to have discrimination on the basis of age.


John R. Rodriguez: They would switch to regular CPP at age
65.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I understand that they would switch to regular CPP at 65, but I am simply saying that the principle of eliminating age discrimination sounds good in theory but may not always be applicable in practice.
Let me point out one area where I believe the principle of this Bill would not stand up to serious examination. It is an area within some of the discussion paper that relates to survivors' benefits and about which we were extremely concerned in the standing committee.

March 14, 1988
Canada Pension Plan
Let us consider the situation of a widow over the age 45. The discussion paper is based on the theory that as more and more women enter the workforce, since women tend to be the recipient in the application of spouse's benefits, the Government felt it might be better to provide them with a short-term bridging benefit of a period of three years' additional help. They would be expected to reintegrate into the workforce following this, and earn money that would then eliminate the necessity for survivor's benefits.
Statistics show that more and more young women are entering the workforce whether or not they have children, school age and below. I believe the flaw in the Member's Bill relates to the discussion of survivors between the ages of 45 and 65. The discussion paper suggests that since women are entering the workforce in greater numbers, they should be allowed this bridging benefit and be able to go into the workforce after this three-year period to compete essentially for the same wage as their male counterpart.
Two factors were discussed in the context of our response to the discussion paper which have not been touched on today. These factors, I believe, are relevant in the context of awarding survivors' benefits. First is the question of earnings. If we look at the typical woman under the age of 45, currently widowed, we find that 74.4 per cent actually reported earnings in 1985. We do not specify exactly at what amount those earnings are placed, but basically three-quarters of the widowed population at that point would be earning some kind of salary outside the home. That number drops, when one looks at widowed women between the ages of 45 and 54 years, to 67.2 per cent. Subsequent to that we see a dramatic drop in the number of widowed women between the ages of 55 and 64 years reporting earnings, so much so that only 38.7 per cent actually reported any earnings in 1985. That means that as public policy makers we may want to examine a policy in relation to survivor's benefits which is in fact discriminatory in a positive sense towards those older women who may not have a significant chance of re-entering the workforce.
Another element which we felt would certainly be relevant in the context of determining Canada Pension Plan benefits is again related to age statistics. It is the question of how many widowed women will go on to remarry and into a second financial partnership. For those people who are widowed under the age of 35 years, according to figures based on 1984 statistics, we can expect that 77.6 per cent of those particular widows will go on to remarry. However, if we look at the age category of 45 to 54 years, we find that only 38.9 per cent of that particular group can be expected to remarry. Obviously, if they are not entering into a second legal and financial partnership, their needs will be quite different. Again, those needs may be quantifiably different on the basis of age.
If we look at the category of widowed women between the ages of 55 and 64 years, we find that only 28.8 per cent will be going on to a second marriage. Therefore, the vast majority of
widowed women over the age of 45 years do not expect to enter into another legal partnership of marriage or a financial partnership. So they will be totally on their own.
I do not feel it is realistic for us as public policy makers to say that in practical application there should not necessarily be discrimination on the basis of age. In fact, I think the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt was one of those who has been highly critical of the Government for not responding specifically with its promise to the older workers in the form of a replacement for the Labour Adjustments Benefits program.
The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program was a policy of the previous Liberal Government to provide long-term assistance to workers over the age of 55 years, in the so-called "sunset" category of industries. Those workers were eligible on the basis of their age. As public policy makers we recognize the principle that at a certain age and stage of one's life, one's chances of re-employment are much diminished. That is why I think that while the principle on the surface looks laudable, in practice, if we apply the principle that there should be absolutely no discrimination on the basis of age in the area of Canada Pension Plan benefits, we may cut off our nose to spite our face in the sense that we will not be able to help older widows who will, of necessity, need our help the most.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Hon. Member, whose talents are also much appreciated on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, for his insights and his interest in improving the survivor's benefits program under the Canada Pension Plan. I also wish to thank him for giving us this opportunity to consider a matter that, I believe, encompasses far more than merely eliminating the age factor from the present framework of survivor's benefits. I am of course referring to the possibility of the surviving spouse being under 65.
Madam Speaker, I think that in addition to the age factor, we should also be examining the basis of the entire structure of survivor's benefits as it now exists. I do not want to give the impression, however, that I disagree with the structure established by the fathers of the Canada Pension Plan when the Plan was set up in the sixties. This Plan was designed to respond to the needs of the sixties, and we can say that all things considered, it has worked quite well, thank you!
It is a fact, however, that the premises on which the present structure of survivor's benefits is based are no longer as relevant today and in fact have almost lost their raison d'etre.
The society in which we live today no longer corresponds to the projection made of that society in the sixties or even to the image extrapolated at the time.
The social conditions that prevailed during that period have changed-some will say for the worse, others for the better-
March 14, 1988

and meanwhile, the structure of the survivor's benefits program has remained virtually the same, immutably laid down in the regulatory framework common to all Acts of Parliament.
The House will recall that the present structure of the survivor's benefits program under the Canada Pension Plan was designed mainly to guarantee income stability for surviving wives. This concept corresponded to the family situation prevailing when the Canada Pension Plan became effective in the sixties.
At the time, and we have to go back about 25 years, it was reasonable to expect that the contributions made by spouses to the family unit were well defined according to sex and reflected the traditional view that the wife was a mother and housewife, while the husband was the bread winner or wage earner. It was also reasonable to expect that the marriage would be long-lasting. Since women had little or no contact with the labour market for many years, it was expected that many women, especially if they were not old enough at the time of the decease of their spouse, would not be able to earn enough money to maintain their previous standard of living or be able to remarry or even to get by without necessarily maintaining their previous standard of living.
Madam Speaker, 20 years later, the same concept is still being used to provide the same kind of guarantees for persons who survive their spouses, although the situation has changed completely and is totally different from the conditions that prevailed 20 years ago. During the past two decades some major changes have taken place in the structure of the family unit and the role of spouses in that unit and in the economy. A striking example of it is the substantial increase in the number of women in the labour force.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to name some of the most important changes that have taken place when women started achieving greater financial independence, and I will also provide some figures to illustrate those changes.
I suggest that my facts can be easily checked by referring directly to the various documents I consulted, and I intend to table a list of those documents later on.
Madam Speaker, I was saying that during the last couple of decades, the labour force participation rate of women had substantially increased. In fact, it has increased steadily since the fifties, and it is expected that by the year 2000, one out of every two workers will be a woman, although in 1950 the ratio was only one out of five. In other words, by the year 2000 the ratio will be the same in the labour force and the general population.
Considering, however, that women's labour force participation rate only reflects the number of working women as a percentage of the total labour force, we must be careful when using these figures because they also depend on the number of men in the labour force. For instance, if the number of men in
Canada Pension Plan
the labour force were to go down, this would raise the percentage of women in the labour force while there would be no increase in the actual number of working women.
Madam Speaker, that is why I think it is far more useful to consider the women's participation rate, which gives us the ratio of working women to the group of women 15 years or over. Between 1967 and 1985, which means from the time the regulations came into effect up to the present decade, the women's participation rate jumped from 40 per cent to about 70 per cent. We also see that the increase is largely due to the behaviour of married women, whose participation rate rose from 40 per cent in 1967 to 66 per cent in 1985, an increase of two-thirds. Various factors contributed to this increase.
1 think it is important to consider this development, because each of these more or less irreversible factors shows that the survivor's circumstances no longer are, and no longer will be, the same as they were during the past 20 or 30 years.
First of all, we have seen a change in women's attitudes to their traditional role and in the perception they have of themselves. Women no longer see marriage as the ultimate goal nor as a protective shield that will save them forever more from solitude and financial insecurity. The rising divorce rate observed in recent years is certainly a reflection of this change in attitude.
Madam Speaker, between 1970 and 1983-within a period of 13, not 25 years the divorce rate doubled. Women feel a need to become more self-reliant and provide for their own financial security. They have become aware of their own potential, shed the traditional and discriminatory stereotypes, get a better education in a wider variety of subjects and increasingly take charge of their own economic circumstances.
To a certain extent, we can measure these changes using a number of indicators. The marriage rate is dropping and the birth rate as well. We are also seeing people postponing marriage and the birth of their first child until they are older. Women are less likely to leave their jobs when they marry or when they have children.
If we look at the participation rate of women in terms of family situation and in terms of the presence of children, we see that even with preschool children, married women have doubled their participation rate. From 34 per cent in 1967, the participation rate of married women with children of preschool age went up to twice that rate, 68 per cent, in 1985. Women with school age children went from 40 per cent up to 70 per cent in 1985, an increase of 75 per cent over the rate observed 20 years before.
Madam Speaker, we can even conclude that although the presence of children tends to restrict women's participation in the labour force, it is less restrictive in 1981 than it was in 1971. We can also assume that on the whole, women are more likely to see their labour market participation as a permanent

March 14, 1988
Canada Pension Plan
activity, even if about 50 per cent of married women work part-time.
Madam Speaker, women's education has also changed dramatically in recent years. These changes are particularly noticeable at the university and college levels, where the number of women enrolled has increased considerably. Interestingly, women students at universities and colleges are majoring in a wider variety of subjects than was previously the case. They have made considerable inroads in fields that traditionally have been a male preserve, which to a certain extent is an indication of a definite change in orientation.
Madam Speaker, it also reflects a turning away from the kind of training that prepared for responsibilities within the home. They now tend the focus on careers that will keep them on the labour market.
Madam Speaker, I see you are signalling that my time is almost up. The Government is now waiting for the Standing Committee of the House on National Health and Welfare, which was asked to proceed with public hearings on the subject, to submit its report. In the light of the results of this major consultation process, this Government, after obtaining the approval of the provinces, will implement new measures to provide Canadian men and women, through the Canada Pension Plan, with a survivor's benefits program that is better adapted to their changing needs.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for giving us the opportunity to talk about this extremely important matter in the House today. He tells us he has been fighting this issue since 1979. I can only say that perhaps his arguments as presented over the years were what convinced and persuaded the federal Government and the provincial Governments to agree to bring about amendments to the Canada Pension Plan to do what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has been arguing about over the years.
While I welcome some of the improvements that are proposed in the discussion paper on survivor benefits I want to say that in my view some of the assumptions made in it are faulty. I have argued this in the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare which is now seized of that document.
That document makes a number of assumptions which do not hold up. The first is that because there is a greater participation of women in the workforce there is less need to pay survivor benefits to those women. It neglects the fact that many of the jobs that have been created for women over the years are really part-time jobs. It does not address the need for adequate child care to allow women to re-enter the workforce. There are a number of problems in the discussion paper.
However, since the matter is before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare and since that committee is in the process of bringing a response forward to the discussion
paper I do not feel that I am at liberty to talk about the actual proposals that we are discussing. I see that the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is sitting in the House today. I think it is safe enough to say without relating any confidences that that is one area of the discussion paper that would have received the unanimous support of the members of the committee. That is what I would have said 10 minutes ago, but since I heard the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on the Bill before the House I am not so sure whether or not it will be unanimous.
Quite frankly, I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East make the type of criticisms against Bill C-250 that she made. What she seemed to argue is that discrimination against a woman under the age of 35 is okay because we need existing dollars under the Canada Pension Plan to go toward improvements for only women in higher age brackets. I see that the Hon. Member is shaking her head in a negative fashion. She seems to be saying that that is not what she meant.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not what I said.


Neil Young: What I thought the Hon. Member said was that only a certain amount of dollars is available dollars which exist in the Canada Pension Plan with which improvements can be made. She seemed to argue that with those available dollars we should be seriously directing those moneys towards improving benefits for those who are in the higher age brackets. That is what I thought she said.
However, the Hon. Member is now saying that that is not what she said. I am delighted to hear that. I have received correspondence from young women under the age of 35 who have been widowed. Many of these women are facing heavy financial responsibilities, especially where children are involved. First, there is the traumatic experience that they go through when their spouse dies, more often than not in a tragic way. They are then faced with the responsibility of bringing their children up without any kind of financial support in some cases, especially if they are not actively participating in the workforce at that time. This can make their lives extremely difficult.
The White Paper argues that if those amendments were not made to the Canada Pension Plan, it could be construed as being a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against younger women at age 35. I am hopeful that when the item is discussed in committee we will end up with a unanimous recommendation to put an end to this discrimination and to do the right thing by these younger people.
There are some other problems in the Canada Pension Plan which could have been addressed in the discussion paper but unfortunately were not. For example, many delays are being encountered between the time an individual lodges an appeal against a decision rendered by the pension board, the time the
March 14, 1988

appeal has been filed, and the time that it is heard. Very often it takes in excess of 12 months.
When the Minister proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan in 1986-and they were passed in the House in July of the same year, roughly about six weeks after they were proposed and introduced-he assured us that a new appeal process would be set up very quickly.
Last week I had occasion to ask the Minister why appeals were still taking in excess of 12 months, very often 18 months between the time when the individual files an appeal and the time the appeal is heard. That is absolutely ridiculous. What did the Minister say when I asked him that question in the House? He said that the problem was that they had to be careful because they did not want to get caught up in workmen's compensation cases and so on.
It was an entirely different answer from the one that the Minister gave to Ms. Alexa McDonough, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia, when he wrote to her on December 10, 1987. He said that while he recognized the delays in appeals, he would also recognize that the new appeal process had not even been set up yet.
There has been a passage of time of some 18 months since the House passed the legislation and the amendments which gave the Minister authority to establish a new appeal tribunal, and it still has not been set up. People who are suffering real financial hardship because of some disability and who very often have no other income except what they could receive under the Canada Pension Plan cannot get at it, because the Minister has not set up the proper appeal procedure which he assured us would speed up the appeal process.
It is time the Government got on with these kinds of things. Today we could approve the Bill which the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has placed before the House. We could handle that one area very quickly without awaiting the report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, which would support this measure in any event. The Minister supports it. Why do we not go ahead with it rather than wait for months until the Department produces legislation? We should proceed with this piece of legislation today and do the right thing for those women under age 35 who are being discriminated against. Even the Minister recognizes that. Let us get on with it and remove the discrimination once and for all.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill. He did not have the wisdom to choose the right political Party, but he had the wisdom to choose parents who live in the riding of Scarborough West whom I am honoured to represent. I also congratulate him for being a good example of the opportunities afforded any Member of Parliament to initiate legislative debate and creative discussion as he has done with this Bill. I have known him to do it with others, such as the Bill on lobbying when it
Canada Pension Plan
was my honour and pleasure to sit with him on the committee responsible for that legislation.
Again we see an example of a Member introducing a legislative proposal as far back as 1979 and reintroducing it as recently as this afternoon. I confidently believe that that seed sown and developed is about to come to fruition. He has made the suggestion that the Private Member's Bill number might be taken off and the Minister might reintroduce it as his recommendation. That gracious suggestion is one which I think may well prove to be the result of the debate this afternoon.
We will see the proposal contained in the Bill strengthened by the report and recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, with further consideration by the Government itself. We will bring back to the House proposals which will meet not only the needs of the people referred to this afternoon but will provide assistance for more Canadians facing difficulty and challenge in this day. As a result of this legislative and governmental process, we will probably see a much better program or better legislative proposal than we might embrace today, even as good as it is.
I would hope that all Hon. Members of the House would see the necessity for the kind of review which is approaching a conclusion that we trust will be a happy one. One reason is the enormity of the size of the program to which we are referring. The survivor's pension program is in itself of incredible and impressive size. Some 483,000 spouses are receiving benefits as a result of the program, as are 94,000 orphans, at a cost to the public of 51,245 million. This manifests the kind of effort which the country is ready to put forward as we endeavour through such programs to assist each other.
We are seeing a need for careful review of the program so that we provide as much assistance to those who need it as is possible for a Government to do, as is possible for a public to do. That is what we are aiming to do. The very size of the program in terms of the figures I have cited shows the need for the process in which we are now involved and will carry it to its happy conclusion.
We must be sure that when the Bill receives the benefit of major amendments-and they will be major-that we have presented to us by the Government a Bill which comprehends the social change that has been a feature of the country's development since the Canada Pension Plan was first initiated. Certainly the number of working spouses is much larger today, and it is but one example of the way in which the social environment has been profoundly altered. Therefore, the kind of program we as a Government will wish to introduce will be one which comprehends all dimensions.
It is vital that all Members of the House and all members of the public concerned about this matter, including the large number watching the debate, be aware that it is not possible for this House or this Parliament on its own to provide the kind of change we want to provide for people who need it most. We have a complex method for amending Canada Pension

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
Plan legislation. It requires full consultation with the provinces, including the approval and support of two-thirds of the provincial Governments representing two-thirds of the population of Canada. It is necessary for us to carry forward the process which I have described, not only in terms of the committee and the Elouse, but also in terms of further consultation with the provinces.
Therefore, I welcome the Bill which has been presented to us this afternoon. I see it in terms of a seed that will lead to full development and the fruition of a legislative proposal by the Government which will adequately meet the need in this regard.


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




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion by Mr. Lewis:
That this House endorses the adoption of the motion, on Monday, March 7, 1988, of the Prime Minister for second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee of 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In accordance with the order made on March 11, 1988, this House will now continue consideration of the motion of the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis).

At five o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had completed his speech. I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to question the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North or to comment on his speech. Otherwise we will resume the debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, during the speech by one of the Conservative Members from Manitoba, he asked why the New Democratic Party would be opposed to free trade with the United States when Manitoba Hydro was receiving billions of dollars in the export of its energy to the United States. Would the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) answer the question: Why would the NDP be opposed to something which the Conservative Member from Manitoba said was such a good thing?


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the one point made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) with which I could agree is that Manitoba Hydro has been successful in completing contracts for sales of hydroelectric power to the midwest United States of about $3.5 billion, and more to come.
The reason the Manitoba Government opposed the so-called free trade agreement is that it does not protect future sales against opposition, which could well be successful, by American interests. There is nothing in the agreement as it is drafted at the present time which would prevent the coal producers in the United States from claiming that hydroelectric power from Manitoba or Quebec or British Columbia is subsidized. For example, in the Manitoba situation the federal Government helped finance the transmission lines which carry the power from northern Manitoba to Winnipeg and then farther to the United States. There is nothing to prevent coal companies or oil companies, if oil is again in surplus supply, or natural gas companies from bringing anti-dumping charges against us and calling for countervail duties to be imposed on the sale of power.
In the agreement, the definition regarding electricity has been changed. Electricity has gone from being an intangible, which it was up until now, to being classified as goods. That will make it easier for the people and interests in the United States who want to stop the sale and export of power from Manitoba or from any of the other provinces and it will make it easier for the Americans to invoke their anti-dumping claims.
There is something else which should be of interest to the people of Saskatchewan and Ontario. Under the terms of this agreement, it would be within the ability of the provincial hydroelectric utility, whether Manitoba, British Columbia or Quebec, to sell power to neighboring provinces. In the case of Manitoba, it is to sell power to Saskatchewan or Ontario at a price lower than it could sell power to the United States. That is very important. We take the view, and I think most Canadians take the view, that the resources of Canada may, under our constitution, be the responsibility of the individual provinces, but they certainly would hope and expect that the resources would be used to the advantage of all people. To say that the Americans can buy power at the same price as we might want to sell power to another province seems to be something we ought to oppose.
Lastly, Manitoba, like other provinces, has been looking at the possibility of establishing an aluminum processing plant in Manitoba. We have huge amounts of potential power to be developed. This agreement with the United States disallows incentive arrangements to be made for energy intensive industries. We cannot give a special deal or a cheaper price to an aluminum company or any other energy intensive using industry at a price that we would not permit the Americans. For all these reasons and others, the Manitoba Government has opposed the free trade agreement.
March 14, 1988


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) knows that the provisions for countervail will exist on both sides of the border after an agreement is made, as they have in the past.
What surprises me is the suggestion by the Hon. Member, if I understood him correctly, that the Manitoba Government may be guilty, to use his words, of dumping hydroelectricity in the United States. He seems to be signalling that to the United States. Does the Hon. Member believe that the Manitoba Government is dumping electricity in the United States and that it would be subject to countervail?


David Orlikow: No, Madam Speaker, of course I do not believe that. It has not happened. The Manitoba Government sells surplus power from the new generating plants. If Manitoba can complete the negotiations, it proposes to develop another power plant which will produce a great deal of power and it will sell a substantial part of that power to the United States. Of course it is not subsidized except in some of the ways which I have mentioned.
Talking about countervail, I wish the Hon. Member would give some thought to the views expressed, not publicly yet or very often, but certainly expressed privately by many leaders of farm organizations. They are worried that despite this agreement, the American and farm interests will be able to apply countervail duties against farm products being exported to the United States whenever they feel markets are being challenged. Also, our system of supply management and marketing boards will mean that prices Canadian farm producers get for their product will not compete with inputs of processed foods from the United States where they do not have marketing boards and supply management. I wish the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), who represents so many farmers, would give some thought to that kind of problem.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on western diversification. Having listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on the subject of hydroelectricity, surely he does not expect me to believe that the Province of Manitoba has undertaken the massive hydroelectric projects it has undertaken without first having some pretty firm commitments of markets to the south of the 49th parallel. If that be the case, then in my view that would just add one more very valid reason why the NDP will probably be rejected in the next provincial election.
I would also like to comment on the absence of an understanding of the difference between consumer-oriented power and power for commercial reasons. Perhaps if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North were to review the trade agreement, he would gain enlightenment on the subject.
I would like to speak on behalf of the proponents of the very innovative, very timely western diversification program. One of
Western Economic Diversification Act
the main features of this program is the fact that it will frequently accept under its terms of reference projects which would otherwise fall through the cracks. It will accept projects that do not quite meet the requirements of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, programs that do not quite fit the Department of Science and Technology or the subagreement in forestry or tourism with the Province of British Columbia or with any other province. The fact is that under western diversification, there will be an opportunity to assist that did not prevail before.
It is in that context that I wish to talk about the rather unique circumstance of a body of fresh water which is the longest navigable freshwater body in western North America.
I am speaking of a stretch of water on the Columbia River from the Grand Coulee Dam in south central Washington State to Revelstoke, British Columbia, on the Trans-Canada Highway, a distance of some 350 miles.
The U.S. side of this body of water is now being enjoyed and will, I hope, be further enjoyed by the marine tourism sector. The American side has been totally surveyed for hydrographic charting, but the minute we hit the Canada-U.S. border, we discover that there is a blank space on the map. There is an outline of a lake and the towns and communities are identified, but there is no navigational chart available.
In order to prepare a navigational chart which would extend from the Canada-U.S. border to Revelstoke, one would be looking at an expenditure of about half a million dollars. It would be a very detailed study involving aerial photography and the depth of the lake measured in increments over a distance of a few metres, back and forth across the lake. It would take about five months. Then all that information would have to be correlated into charts. This is complicated by the fact that from Castlegar north, we are dealing with a body of water which is subject to substantial fluctuation by virtue of the Columbia River Treaty and the storage dams on that river.
That project really does not fit any other mould, but I am hopeful that under western diversification, we will see that project funded early. It may be that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could be the provider of assistance. However, it also happens to have priorities of a navigational nature in the Beaufort Sea where we are continuing to look for new oil and gas discoveries. The Department has some emergency work to do in the Hecate Strait off northern Vancouver Island, so in order to get this project going, we find that there is a possibility that it will fit the western diversification fund.
There is another project going on in Kootenay West. A company called Kootenay Tractor will hopefully be in a position to purchase an entire product line from the United States to manufacture a log-forwarder. One might say that that is fine, we are glad to see a company from the United States go into production in Canada, but where is the diversification there. The diversification lies in the fact that the dealer of this particular log-forwarder has, on the basis of his own

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
experience, upgraded and strengthened the equipment so that it will be a more valuable and practical asset in the steep-slope terrain of British Columbia. Again, I hope that this project will fit the western diversification fund.
When we are talking about western diversification, we must also look at other areas where assistance under the western diversification fund is possible. Forentek is a major research facility for the forest industry, paid for largely by industry but in part by Government. Feric is a like institute of research. One institute is researching the end products and by-products of the forest industry and one is researching the need for value-added forest products. After all, about 50 per cent of all wood we export from Canada into the United States is value added in the United States. Clearly, by improving our capacity to diversify by value adding, we are creating new opportunities for employment and we are creating new products for the world. That opportunity exists within the research facilities of these institutes on the UBC campus.
Much of the equipment and machinery used, including computerized turnkey sawmills, comes from Germany and some of it comes from Sweden. There was a recent conference in Edmonton which I had the privilege of attending with the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and his Parliamentary Secretary. Canada's industry is now determined to move to a number one position in value-added commodities in the forest sector and in the production of world-class forestry equipment. That determination was made clear at that three-day conference.
Forentek and Feric are the kinds of institutes that will help us get an additional leg-up through western diversification, thus creating more and more jobs. That is the bottom line.
I must return to the concept that is so often touted by our socialist friends. They say that we have a Government which persists in keeping the people of the West drawers of water, hewers of wood and pumpers of oil and gas, and there is no diversification. Yet when we provide the opportunity for diversification, they decry it. They say things that are most uncomplimentary. There is an absence of fact and an absence of understanding.
I believe that this stems from the mind-set of the socialist. Socialists would rather wallow in misery than see success. I cannot understand why they cannot enjoy success and share the enjoyment, pride and pleasure of success. No, they would rather say that the people of British Columbia are still hewers of wood and drawers of water. That is where our Party philosophies are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I sometimes think that socialists were weaned on pickles. I see the attitude of NDP Members in their voting record. They voted against the repeal of the National Energy Program. That certainly tells me that they supported it at its outset.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: So did the Conservatives.


Robert Hylton Brisco: My colleague shouting from across the floor has not been seized by the facts.
The NDP marched lock-step down the road with Marc Lalonde on the National Energy Program. They voted against its repeal, knowing full well the economic disaster it had created in Saskatchewan, northern British Columbia, Alberta and even in the southern part of Manitoba. They also voted against the PGRT. They did not want to see the western energy accord succeed. They did not want to see the petroleum and natural gas industry take off. Why would they? That is success, and that is not cast in the mould of the NDP. They hate success. They want to be able to wallow in misery. Thank heaven that so many of us share a different attitude.
I have to support the comments of my colleague from Edmonton South who spoke so eloquently on this issue. However, having listened to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and his comments on agriculture and what this Conservative Government failed to do, we should look at the socialist record. The NDP voted against a $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmers. They did not want the farmer to smell success or have some measure of financial security after a lifetime of labour on and investment in his own land. The NDP voted against the expenditure of $92 million for drought relief for western farmers. Farmers on the Prairies will be reminded of that not just in the next federal election but in the ensuing weeks in Manitoba.
The NDP voted against providing the Canadian Wheat Board with $200 million to meet its deficit. Why? Where is the support they espouse for the prairie farmer? Did they vote against these measures because they wanted farmers to have more? Or, did they vote against them because they did not understand the purpose of the motion? Or, did they vote against them just on the principle that they could not possibly bring themselves to support the Government in power?
Their rhetoric is the rhetoric of failure, failure to recognize success. If that be their particular bag, then I say let them carry on with it. However, I have no hesitation, when I look at the western diversification program, in saying how fine it is that the essential requirement which will determine the acceptability of proposals will be the contribution each project or activity makes to the diversification of the western economy. What better aim or ambition could there be?
What about Kootenay West? How do I feel when I see the forest industry in a slump? They all have that slump. It is very much a creature of the market-place. How do I feel when the price of metals drops off the scale and miners are out of work? How do I feel when Cominco cuts back on its employees as it did in the massive lay-offs we experienced in my constituency in 1985 and 1986? No other alternative to turn to. There has been no diversification, but now it is starting to happen. It started even before this program came into being. It started with the support of this Government and my personal support.
March 14, 1988

We are seeing some examples of diversification which will help to take those students fresh out of high school or college and give them new skills in new technologies which will provide for them in the future.
Where is the future in tying the prairie provinces inextricably to agriculture? Where is the future in tying Alberta to the petroleum industry, or cattle, without adding value to the product? Where is the future? This Government had the foresight to address that issue because it came to office with one fundamental commitment to Canada: jobs, jobs, jobs. While the unemployment numbers in Kootenay West are far from satisfying to me, at least 1 know they are nowhere near the point they were in 1984. At least I know that western diversification is going to work for my constituency and is working, just as Community Futures is working, just as other programs of the Government of Canada are working.
When it comes to expenditures and federal involvement in Kootenay West from September of 1984 until today, I will stack our record against anything accomplished by any other Member over the last 30 years.
I have no hesitation in supporting this program. I am proud of the Government for introducing it. It is a match for the Atlantic Accord and will help generate new technologies and new kinds of employment opportunities for young Canadians. With that I thank you for the opportunity to address the Elouse this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the downturn in the oil and gas industry in western Canada, cut-backs in exploration and everything else that happened. He described that situation in the early 1980s as being caused by the National Energy Program. What he did not say is that in the U.S., which did not have an NEP but which did have the most pro-business President it has had in the last 50 years, Exxon, which invested $4 billion in developing a plant to extract oil from shale in Colorado, shut down that plant because the price of oil had dropped so far.
The world price of oil right now is below $15 U.S. a barrel. That means exploration and development by the major companies is going to be cut back because there is a surplus for the foreseeable future. If that happens in Canada, as has already happened in the U.S., who will the Member and his Conservative Party blame for it since they did away with the NEP?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for using that as an example. I cannot think of a more unfortunate example than oil extraction from shale. It is probably the most costly undertaking one could conceivably make in the oil and gas industry. I have to say that the extraction of that analogy from the precincts of the Hon. Member's thoughts is really begging the question and stretching credibility.
Western Economic Diversification Act
He talks about the difference between Canada and the U.S. and says that the NEP really was not that harmful. If his memory serves him well he will perhaps remember, or perhaps he has been told, that when the NEP was introduced, literally hundreds and hundreds of trucks containing oil rigs-and the Hon. Member might tell me if he knows approximately how many flatbeds it takes to move one standard rig-were lined up at the border as they headed south. An entire exploration industry moved out of the Province of Alberta and into the United States to get into the oil and gas discovery process. That was because of the National Energy Program.
I was in Alberta at the time that this was happening. I watched all the little service sectors which are so important to the industry fold. I saw small towns in which the economic base was the oil and gas service industry where one in ten houses was for sale. Twenty-two trucks of Canadian FracMas-ter in Red Deer for fracing in the oil sector sat idle, every one of them with $.5 million in high technology sitting on them. Only five were operating. People do drop things down drill holes, hence the need for tool retrieval companies, which were also idle. Commercial or industrial laundries which handled the oil-ridden clothes and cloths from the worksite were idle, jobs were gone.
I went into Fort St. John during that period and you could fire a cannon down the main street without hitting anything. Yet, before the National Energy Program was introduced you could not get a hotel room in Fort St. John to save your soul unless you had a reservation two weeks in advance. It was on that basis that one company of which I am aware decided that it would respond to that need in Fort St. John and build a hotel. It got built, and it went broke. It was a very unfortunate opening because it opened at about the time that Marc Lalonde, with his colleagues from the NDP, brought in the National Energy Program.
There is only one person whom I know in Alberta, whose name is known to Canadians, who has the courage today to stand up and say: "I supported the National Energy Program". I am darned if I know how he has avoided the lynch mob. That is Mel Hurtig. There is a man who really pushes his credibility and his luck. In spite of everything, he has been the beneficiary of a couple of million dollars from this Government for his excellent works on The Canadian Encyclopedia.
The fact is that Mr. Hurtig supported the National Energy Program in spite of the fact that he was well aware of the economic and social disaster which it created in the Province of Alberta, in northern British Columbia, in southern Saskatchewan, and even in the heavy oil of southern Manitoba.
If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North wants to wax eloquent and use as an argument the fact that Exxon stopped work on oil extraction from shale on the basis of the oil price of $14, $15, $18, or $20 a barrel, that is not a very good basis for an argument.

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the western diversification department which is being established. Before I get into that though I want to point out to the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), who has just spoken, that he should look at the history of the National Energy Program.
If he looks back in Hansard he might find that his Party, in opposition, voted for the National Energy Program and that the New Democratic Party, also in opposition, voted against the National Energy Program. I suggest that before he commits himself in this House and in public he should look back in Hansard and find out who voted for and who voted against the National Energy Program. That does not mean that we did not support some parts of it, as did the Conservatives. I suggest that the Member, who is leaving the House, does not know what he is talking about when he says that the New Democratic Party supported the National Energy Program at its conception.
The Member also made a lot of noise about us voting against a number of programs. He indicates a certain ignorance of what has gone on in this House. We voted against $650,000 for the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). If the Government had gone along with us and taken that amount out of the Estimates, we would have supported them. It was quite possible for the Government to do that without affecting any of the other programs which we all supported. The Member should look before he talks. He should not make statements such as he has which are far from accurate.
We voted against $650,000 for that Member but we did not vote against those other things. It was quite possible for the Government to put those Estimates back on the table after removing the amounts about which he spoke.
We in the West have had a lot of experience with diversification and development. The Government changes the name but the hope and the effective help remains about the same, very small. We call the West next-year country and it is this kind of program which makes it next-year country because we have been getting this from Liberal and Conservative Governments for many years. Each time it has come to naught and that is why we are called next-year country, as well as the fact, of course, that we are always looking toward next year's crop. These are the kinds of programs which make us believe that we are indeed next-year country.
The previous Liberal Government launched the Western Development Fund in 1980. It was to be $4 billion over four years, $1 billion a year. It was to start immediately but the money never appeared. It never appeared in the Estimates or as cash on anyone's table in any way. It was diverted. Many of the projects which the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) indicated the Liberal Government had put before the House and the country already existed. The money was already in the Estimates and had been tagged for these projects but suddenly it became money for the Western Development Fund.
My home city of Prince Albert was in receipt of some of these funds through a program to develop the airport terminal. That terminal had been on the books of the Department of Transport for many years. Suddenly the money became available and was designated as funds from the Western Development Fund even though they were in the Estimates of Transport. We are used to such smoke and mirrors in the West as far as development is concerned. The Liberal and the Conservative versions are not very much different.
We do not really expect too much in the West. We support the idea and the objectives but are very reticent to say that this will happen because too often in the past it has not happened. In this particular case we are told that it is going to be $1.2 billion over each of four years compared with the Liberals' $4 billion over four years. There is quite a difference in the amount, which I do not think makes much difference in determining whether the Liberals had a better program because we never got any money from them either.
What is the source of the funds? According to the Minister, the office of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion will be closed and its budget and personnel will go to the department of western economic diversification, at a cost of some $11 million. The legislation indicates that the personnel will come from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with total operating costs of some $19 million, according to the 1988-89 Estimates.
The $290 million of the $1.2 billion this year for all four provinces is not really new money. In 1985, economic and regional development funds amounted to $14,844 billion, which was reduced each year, to $11,792 billion by 1987, a drop of some $3 billion. Of that $3 billion, $1.2 billion is being restored to the West, some $200 million in the East and further funds for northern Ontario. Therefore, these funds do not necessarily represent new money, and do not even equal the $3 billion that was cut during those three years.
In 1987, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was operating across Canada with funds of $11,792 billion. That department has disappeared, to be replaced by the department of western economic diversification, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, FEDNOR for northern Ontario development as well as the Department of Science and Technology. The smoke and mirrors approach taken by the Government means that we are not sure how that $11 billion has been allocated.
It has been suggested that this is not new money in light of the fact that several programs will expire. These include IRDP which will expire this year and the IRDA program which will run out the year after. The Western Transport Industrial Development Fund will terminate after another year. Therefore, the federal Government will no longer have to fund these programs. Furthermore, the personnel for the department will
March 14, 1988

come from the offices of DRIE and Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Minister responsible for western economic diversification will be the czar of development in western Canada. When one considers this legislation and the material which has been sent to us, it appears that the department of western economic diversification, although small, will be responsible for the coordination of the line departments, including such major departments as Agriculture and Transport.
The present definition of "Minister" reads:
'Minister' means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act'.
The definition in this legislation states:
'Minister', in relation to any class of matters to which this Act extends in any province or region of a province, means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act in relation to that class of matters in that province or region of a province;'
It means that this small department will become responsible for the co-ordination of line departments. Hon. Members will know that the Department of Transport is a major department in the West and has a lot of clout. It is very difficult to reverse a decision of the Department of Transport, but that is the responsibility of this department of western economic diversification.
While the concept of having such a department responsible for line departments is good, I doubt that the czar of Western Economic Diversification will have enough power. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion had the responsibility of co-ordinating line departments in regional development and got nowhere. We know, from experience in the West, that it is a very difficult task.
There is also a danger that the Minister can turn this $1.2 billion into a slush fund to be used as a weapon against governments such as the Manitoba Government or individuals and organizations that do not follow government direction.
I do not believe the Minister will be able to fulfil his responsibility with $60 million a year for each province. The trade deal will not allow him to do the many things the Minister says he wants to do in the booklet he passed out to the House last August. He suggests there are a number of things the trade deal will limit. One of the things the Alberta Government, the Saskatchewan Government, the Manitoba Government, and probably the Ontario Government, have done in the development of small industries and companies in Canada, is to give them breaks with respect to the cost of energy and other resources. That is no longer possible under the trade deal. Under the trade deal we cannot give someone in Canada a break, unless that break is given to his opposition in the United States as well.
Western Economic Diversification Act
A lot of the strength of Canadian development in the West has been in transportation. There are really two ways in which one can support regional development in the West. First is by helping out in the development of the industry or whatever one intends to develop in the West and, second, by developing the kind of transportation structure which makes it possible for western products to reach the market at a price that is competitive with other products from the United States or eastern Canada. We will no longer be able to subsidize transportation. The trade deal limits that. It limits it immediately on things like granola. We think that is one of the directions in which the trade program is going. It does not say so specifically in all areas but it indicates that that is what we can expect.
We cannot give tax breaks. We will be required to input substitution of Canadian products. There is a section in the trade deal which suggests that if the company is working in Canada, it must be treated as if it was local. Therefore, we cannot say that we have a product in Canada which will be used to manufacture something else in Canada more cheaply. The American company can come in and use that product. All of these things are in the trade deal.
Also the idea that we can establish a "buy Canada" or "buy provincial" is going to be left out as well. We might be able to keep our "buy provincial" policies because we do not really have too good a trade between provinces, but we will not again after this trade deal comes into effect be able to have a "buy Canada" policy because it suggests that any product coming into Canada must be treated as if it were produced in Canada.
We are told that 12,000 tonnes of grapes that are produced in British Columbia, the whole wine industry, will be wiped out because we will not be able to protect that industry from its competition in the United States. One of the things the Government has suggested it was going to do, and do well, is to allow supply and services to be divided among all the provinces of Canada. The West is 26 per cent of the population and has only 11 per cent of the procurement of the Government of Canada. The CF-18s, the rail line rehabilitation, the municipal infrastructure, even the so-called diversification fund, are so far all committed to Canada. These have now been committed to Eastern Goodrich and Japanese firms, not to firms which could and do give us a lot of jobs.
I have been critical of the Bill and what is going to happen because of the Bill, but I am not critical of the idea. What we need is development and diversification in the West. We have strong industries in the West. We have agriculture, mining, energy, forestry. These are industries which are very strong and on those industries can be built the kind of economic development which will make the West a prosperous area. I agree that we need this kind of development. I use the words "development" instead of "diversification" because diversification implies something different. But we have the strong industries from which we can develop other industries which

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
would be important and would make us a strong and viable operation in the West. I have much more to say but the time does not allow.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in support of Bill C-113, which establishes the western economic diversification department. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the details of the western diversification initiative last August, he stressed the Government's belief that Canada's regions must have a more direct role in shaping the programs that affect them. In other words, sharing the major decision-making process with the regions.
This initiative builds on ongoing Government action to implement the 1984 Prince Albert Declaration which sets out the fundamental principles that should underlie western Canadian economic development policies, recognition of the importance of providing opportunities to allow young people to remain in the West, the importance of strong western representation in the Cabinet and the need for co-operation, consultation and understanding between the federal Government and the West.
Indeed, we must build on our strengths by providing technical, financial and market opening support to those westerners with a will to win. I might add that, in my view, such a will does exist in the West.
It is important to emphasize that the western diversification fund is not a substitute for spending programs operated by other departments, particularly those active in key resource and economic infrastructure sectors like agriculture, energy, fisheries and transport.
Western diversification investments are seeking to take best advantage of new national policies with respect to such matters as international trade and industrial innovation. This is just one more of our Government's initiatives to add to the overhaul of Canada's finances, the Meech Lake Accord and the free trade initiative.
We have moved on the economic front, the social front, in external affairs and in improving federal-provincial relations, not to mention the 1.2 million jobs created since September 1984 and the fact that there are .5 million fewer Canadians living below the poverty line today than there were in 1984.
The western diversification initiative is further proof that our Government has been sensitive to western needs from the first months we came into office. In my own Province of Alberta, 53,000 jobs have been created since the election and the unemployment rate has fallen from a record of 12.1 per cent in September 1984 to 9.5 per cent. In Calgary it has gone from 13.1 per cent to 8.5 per cent, with 16,000 jobs having been created in the past 12 months. Housing starts are up in Alberta. The value of building permits has increased. Retail sales have increased by 8 per cent in the past year. International tourism has improved in the past year without even taking
into account the influx of tourists brought about by Calgary's magnificent Winter Olympic Games.
In rig activity, there were 328 rigs drilling in February this year compared to 141 at the same time last year. I am proud to say also that the Party which abolished the National Energy Program has come through with special payments to farmers to help overcome the subsidized competition from Common Market countries. With western diversification we are intent on backing up and diversifying the resource sectors of the western economy, but we can also move into developing manufacturing and high-technology fields.
When Prime Minister Trudeau made one of his trips to the West in 1973 Calgary hosted the Western Economic Opportunities Conference that resulted in piles and piles of learned papers. Finally, in the 1980 Budget of his Government the creation of a $4 billion western development fund was announced. To questions I placed on the Order Paper I learned that $345 million of this was assigned to native economic development; $82 million was assigned to an agri-food development program; and $60 million was assigned to a Vancouver rapid transit system. Amounts assigned to western grain transportation related initiatives included $1.7 million, plus increased future commitments under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
However, it was interesting to me to learn that the initiatives associated with the fund were to be financed out of general budgetary revenues, and that the funding was established partly in recognition of the increased revenues anticipated under that devastating Liberal National Energy Program, devastating to the West. In other words, the West was being bled for some narrow initiatives which would do nothing, nothing to diversify its economy, and left it largely dependent on its non-renewable natural resources.
The Western Diversification Program is an entirely new concept. It is one which will co-ordinate all federal economic development activities in the West. The establishment of the headquarters in Edmonton will mean that a significant part of the decision-making on development projects will be shifted west, increasing the understanding of the economic atmosphere in which we must function and eliminating the delays of a distant bureaucracy.
It is planned that the WDO's head office in Edmonton, together with its sub-offices in Vancouver, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, will use its allocation to top up projects, contribute to important infrastructure projects and aid in the exploration of new ways to expand the potential of our western resource base. Western diversification staff will also assist businesses to find their way through the Ottawa bureaucracy, no mean task. It will help people in the front lines of Canadian economic development. Through these contacts it is hoped, in cooperation with the provinces and the business community, that
March 14, 1988

strengths and weaknesses of local economies can be analysed sector by sector.
This program has been designed to serve as an active and aggressive voice which will ensure that national decisionmaking reflects western opportunities and western needs. Our Government has undertaken to continue to provide the environment in which business can flourish. For instance, new rules for financial institutions are encouraging vigour and competitiveness throughout the financial sector. Tax reform will reduce distortions, promote equity and reward productive investment. The new National Transportation Act will improve Canada's lifelines by removing freight rate discrimination.
With 10 western Members of Cabinet the structure is in place to support them and their policy initiatives. Western Canadians are knowledgeable and aware of how crucial a secured access to the lucrative United States' market is. My constituents have been solidly behind our free trade agreement with that country. At the same time westerners are conscious of the opportunities available in the Pacific Rim. I have noted with satisfaction their pursuit of those markets.
Our Government has shown that it has confidence in Canadians. Entrepreneurs in this country want access to markets and an opportunity to compete because we have the talent to compete with anyone in the world.
I believe the WDO's most significant contribution in the long run will be the strong influence it can bring to bear on behalf of western Canada in the formulation of federal economic development to prepare for the next decade and, indeed, the next century. My personal hope is that WDO will seek high returns in economic development and diversification, monitor the performance of its investments and cut its losses if expectations are not met.
The federal Government has increased dramatically its assistance to the energy and grain producers. This fund is in addition to those substantial amounts.
The energy sector is a vital component of the western economy. Western Canada accounts for approximately 99 per cent of Canada's crude oil and natural gas production. Alberta alone accounts for some 87 per cent of production. Western Canada remains highly dependent on the oil and gas sector as the engine of growth. It is my hope that through programs such as western diversification a broader economic base can be achieved.
When the price of oil declined in early 1986 the economy in the West, and in particular in Alberta and the City of Calgary, declined significantly in terms of jobs lost and serious reduction in investment and exploration activity. Spot prices fell to under $13 U.S. a barrel. In fact, they fell from almost $30 down to below $10 a barrel. With these rapid and unforeseen developments in the oil and gas markets the Governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Canada have taken measures to assist the industry and maintain employment.
Western Economic Diversification Act
Alberta announced royalty relief in support programs. Saskatchewan introduced three programs to promote industry activity or reduce royalty burdens. Among the federal Government's provision of tax relief measures and assistance were the elimination of the petroleum and gas revenue tax, the elimination of which the Opposition did not support, and the introduction of the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program which, although it is to be phased out, has supported the industry through these very trying times.
At the federal-provincial-territorial conference of Ministers of Energy in January, 1987, the Ministers agreed to undertake a review of energy security which would include an assessment of the role of conservation, oil substitution, oil and gas transportation infrastructure, electricity and the means to accelerate the development of new energy projects.
The Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, undertook to do a study which we called "Oil: Scarcity or Security?" In particular, our committee's concern was the future availability of crude oil internationally and domestically and the future supply of conventional light crude oil.
Our report clearly indicated the potential for serious problems arising from the highly uneven distribution of the world's light petroleum resources. The committee recognizes that the federal Government must weigh other concerns as well in setting energy policy. The question of oil availability cannot be settled as a resource issue alone. The committee paid due attention to the need for the satisfactory resolution of environmental and native concerns. As Members will know, our committee is not empowered under Standing Orders to undertake studies in environmental or aboriginal issues. However, the committee did feel that it had a responsibility to indicate the implications of making policy which ignores the petroleum supply question.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), in the Government response to the report, did state that the Government is in general agreement with our observations that Canadian policy should be an intermediate one between the extremes of a laissez-faire approach and the massive intervention typified by the National Energy Program of the previous Government. The Minister went on to state that although the report suggested that strategic intervention should be directed at oil, because oil markets do not function in a normal economic fashion, the Government's approach has been to improve the functioning of domestic energy markets and internationally to co-operate with our trading partners in initiatives designed to improve the stability of international oil markets.
The initiatives already taken by the Government in the energy sector to date will help prevent a loss of technological leadership. Our oil and gas sector is among the most advanced anywhere, and it has benefited from exporting its technological

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
expertise around the world. Substantial potential for the future growth exists in technology intensive areas within the energy sector, such as oilsands mining and heavy oil recovery and upgrading. While the current unstable world oil price situation may have reduced the immediate urgency to develop alternative energy techniques, energy research and development continue to be extremely essential.
A major contribution to the ongoing diversification of Alberta's economy was announced on December 22 last year. This was a joint federal-provincial financial commitment for the development and construction of an $18 million engineering research facility to the Centre for Frontier Engineering Research called CFER. The federal Government, under the WDO, is providing a $7.75 million capital contribution, with $1 million of this to be matched by CFER through its industry supporters. The Alberta Government is providing a total of $6.75 million, which includes a $4.5 million capital grant, $1.25 million toward operating funds through 1993, and $1 million maximum interest subsidy. The province will also provide a loan guarantee of up to $5 million.
The planned facility will feature two unique world class laboratories, a low temperature structural laboratory and a tubular products laboratory. Research undertaken in the new facility will be aimed at the development of technology to lower both the capital and operating costs of Canada's industry resources.
CFER was established in 1983 with funding from the Devonian Group of Charitable Foundations, the Government of Alberta, and the private sector. It is a non-profit research organization located in Edmonton. Industry support for the research centre has come from some 40 firms, including oil, steel, and engineering consulting companies across Canada.
It is fundamentally important that Canada maintain this technological edge and that the federal Government's actions continue to support the oil and gas sector and help us maintain this advantage. I trust that the WDO will be interested in projects consistent with Canada's international trade policy, which would help firms in the sector to broaden a commercially competitive capacity to apply their considerable expertise to other domestic sectors and to exports.
Support of propane and natural gas fuels development will, I am sure, continue. In the future, non-conventional sources of supply, such as oilsands, heavy oil, plus frontier supplies will become an increasingly large factor in Canada's energy equation. A number of major projects to develop these resources at present being evaluated or under way will have the potential to bring on stream large new oil supplies while increasing Canada's technological leadership.
The importance of Canadian energy security should be coupled with the value and benefit of Canada's energy exports. The goal of security of supply can best be achieved in an
environment that encourages a free international flow of energy commodities.
Since announcing its intention to place a priority on western diversification in the October 1986 Throne Speech, our Government has held numerous informal meetings and discussions with provincial Governments concerning the federal initiative and has welcomed specific proposals from those provinces. The Premiers have established a western ministerial working group on diversification to design, with the Government of Canada, the imminent federal strategy. The federal Government has agreed, with the emphasis placed by the Premiers on the importance of long-term policies, to secure economic stability, growth, and diversification in western Canada.
In conclusion, in preparing the western diversification initiative, the federal Government has listened closely to the advice of western Canadians. A consensus has emerged on the objectives, and the implementation of the western economic diversification department is a major step towards realizing those objectives.
I wish to state my firm support for Bill C-113.


Mr. Schellenberger:: It was an excellent speech given by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) which answered many of the questions raised here today about the value and worth of this western diversification program. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on a comment made by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) when he stated that there would be limitations because of the trade initiative between Canada and the United States.
Of the 262 odd offers for projects that WDO has made in the last five or six months, does the Hon. Member believe that most of those projects that are forthcoming in western Canada are not coming forward because of anticipated exports into that huge market into the United States? Many small businesses and new opportunities in the West seem to be very excited about the opportunities, not of a market of 2 million people or 25 million in Canada, but of the opportunity of moving south of the Alberta and Saskatchewan borders into states that have populations as great as all of Canada. The opportunity now is there because of the openness of the border and the loss of tariff inhibitions that have been there in the past. Even in the energy field workers can cross the border much more freely than they could in the past.
I would like the Hon. Member to comment on whether she believes that a lot of the help that the federal Government can give to western firms will in fact result from the anticipation of a better trading arrangement with the United States?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I wish to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), for his kind remarks and his questions. To start off I believe that there have already been 4,000 or 4,100 requests for assistance through the western diversification office.
March 14, 1988

The Hon. Member has suggested that 262 projects are being reviewed. Certainly this shows what western Canada has and that we are willing to work toward improving our areas in terms of natural resources and in the agricultural field.
However, in the area of free trade we are looking to a market of not only 25 million people, but of 250 million plus 25 million. We know that in the area of oil and gas it takes moneys invested in certain areas to bring on megaprojects. They are extremely expensive. Also, through high technology, we are working toward becoming more efficient in the production of the tar sands as well as the frontier areas.
In my previous remarks I mentioned CFER which will be built in Edmonton. It will do cold weather research with regard to tubular goods and will allow us to become far more efficient and productive.
I must say that the petrochemical industry is probably the main thrust under free trade. My hon. colleague is absolutely right that free trade will remove some of the tariffs, which go up as high as 18 per cent on some petrochemical products. They have really been a tremendous barrier to allowing us to improve export and production in that particular area.
First, certainly the petrochemical area will benefit a great deal. The second area must be investment. As we improve our efficiency and our ability to do enhanced oil recovery and improve pipeline transportation, I foresee that it will take a lot of investment. This is why I want to say that the Hon. Member is absolutely right. Free trade will allow western Canada to expand and will give us markets so that perhaps we will not be so reliant on a federal Government.
It is very interesting to note that for many years most major decisions have come out of central Canada. It is high time that the regional areas, be they the Atlantic provinces, the western provinces, or northern Ontario, had people with the expertise in their own areas to look at and approve the most beneficial projects in the areas with which they are concerned.
As far as regional assistance under free trade is concerned, of course it has been exempted and will be reviewed. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that will discourage the western diversification office that we are setting up or the $1.2 billion fund. This was clearly set out in the free trade agreement. Canada has so many regions which vary in population and in economics that it is only prudent to realize this and have it included in the free trade agreement.
I look forward to the future of this particular initiative which we have established out West, and I look forward to working with the Minister.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, when the debate has to do with the West it has a special attraction to me. I would have been sorry to see no one from Quebec say at least a few words. However I do deplore the lateness of the hour-I
Western Economic Diversification Act
always like the thruth-because I have to meet an important group at 7.45 p.m., and I would have liked to speak longer in the debate, but what matters is not how long one speaks, but the feelings one tries to convey as is now the case on this Bill called the Western Economic Diversification Act.

It is well known to all my colleagues that I have a lot of affinity with western Canada. I must have been to western Canada over 200 times, at least to speak, since becoming a Member of Parliament. If there is someone who should understand, it is certainly me. I am from Quebec but I am a federal Member in Ottawa, a Canadian, who understands the importance of western Canada to all Canada.
I just returned from three days in Winnipeg where I saw a very enthusiastic lady, as enthusiastic as the one who spoke before me, Mrs. Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party. As the House knows, she will be celebrating her birthday on the same day as she will become the Premier of Manitoba.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: What does this have to do with western diversification?


George Albert Proud: The Hon. Member would be surprised. I have discovered that there is no polarization in Manitoba. Polarization was one of the great difficulties. If people all on one side, decide that they do not like it and go to the other side, there is no middle ground. However, I think that Mrs. Carstairs represents the middle ground and that polarization has been totally destroyed. It is a new ball game in Manitoba. I have a great deal of respect and affection for her. I spoke to a school in which Mrs. Carstairs was a teacher many years ago. She reminded me of that fact on the weekend. I did not remember it, but I was very delighted that she remembered the occasion.
I just wanted to say a few words in a non-aggressive way. It is a call to Canadians. I may not agree totally with the Bill, but it will go to committee. It will be reviewed. Every Government has its own approach to diversification.
Any part of my country is very important to me. Anything that can be done to make Canadians at large, not only western Canadians, understand that if a part of Canada is unhappy- and this is always my speech; people will say: "there he goes again"-the rest of Canada should feel unhappy. If western Canada does not feel that it is part of Canada, the rest of Canada should look into it and take the necessary steps to ensure that all parts of Canada are total parts of Canada and totally happy to be parts of Canada.
If I only have the time to say that-and probably that is all I will have time to say if I look at Madam Speaker-at least I have said it as a Quebec Member, un depute du Quebec a Ottawa, to underline the importance of what we are about to study in the parliamentary committee.
I may not be the greatest expert in law, but I should like to call upon Canadians to understand that when a part of Canada

March 14, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
is unhappy, when a part of Canada is feeling frustrated, or when a part of Canada does not feel that it is getting as much from all of Canada, there will be difficulty. If the Bill, amended or otherwise, could help achieve that goal, I think we will have done a great thing for my country. I will thank the Hon. Member now because I have to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) wish to reply in the 30 seconds remaining?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I could not let this opportunity go by, Madam Speaker, without making a quick 30-second statement with regard to the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party who talked about recognizing western Canada.
It is very interesting that he is a member of the Party which brought in the National Energy Program that sucked $60 billion out of Alberta to support central Canada. However, I was very pleased to hear him say that we must all work together because that is what the country is all about. It is high time that we all recognized that we are one big country and must support each other.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Go.


George Albert Proud: I will not go because I stand by what I say. I regret the tone of the Hon. Member in reply to a contribution that I wanted to be a very positive one. I regret that she made it so negative, but I thank her very much, indeed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Madam Speaker, five Members are standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did not hear anybody say no, but obviously someone did.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether there was a "no" but I do not think it is necessary in order to have a recorded vote called.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, while perhaps it is the desire of the House to have a recorded vote on this matter, I would ask that you review the Standing Orders as they relate to the mechanism used for calling such a vote. Perhaps when we reconvene at 11 a.m. tomorrow morning you will be able to advise us as to whether or not we have abided by the rules of the House in the calling of a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Standing Orders require the Speaker to ask for yeas and nays and then for a recorded vote to take place if there is dissension in the House.
I asked whether it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. Everyone said yes. There is no reason in the world for the Speaker to go through the yeas and nays and there is nothing in the Standing Orders at this point that would require me to go through that procedure and ask for a recorded vote.
Members are the masters of the House. If there is a unanimous request from the House that there should be a recorded vote then, of course, I will abide by the Members' wishes.
Is there a unanimous request from the House that there should be a recorded vote on the subject tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: As we do not have unanimous consent, I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
It being 7.34 p.m. pursuant to Order made Friday, March 11, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers