1989-04-20

Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the recent tragic events in Lebanon are of concern to all Canadians, and I am sure all Members of the House share the Government's sense of compassion for the many victims of latest troubles.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has already stressed this great concern on several occasions.
On March 31, Canada participated in the Security Council meeting on Lebanon and we expressed our support for the statement issued by the president of the Security Council at that time.
Mr. Speaker, what has been happening in the last month in Beirut is of course only the latest stage in the civil war which has rent that country for the last 14 years, and it cannot be seen in isolation.
Throughout these events, Canada's support for the sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon has been steadfast, and that remains the fundamental basis of our position.
As part of this, we have repeatedly supported the principle of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.

We believe that all Lebanese parties must make further efforts toward national reconciliation and, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stated on March 30, we do not consider that violence is the route to national reconciliation. We have therefore
called upon all the parties concerned to redouble their efforts to achieve national reconciliation.
The complexity of the Lebanese problem hardly needs underlining. It is known to have defeated the well-meaning efforts of numerous outside parties, but this is no reason to stop trying. This is why we have supported the efforts of the Arab League Ministerial Committee, led by the foreign Minister of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah. Our support for his efforts has been conveyed directly to the Government of Kuwait and we have urged the parties concerned, particularly Syria and the Lebanese parties, to co-operate with the Arab League efforts. We also welcome the latest initiative by President Mitterrand.
Over the years, Canada has done its part to help alleviate the suffering of Lebanon and the Lebanese. Canada has given refuge to thousands of Lebanese who have chosen to make their homes with us. We are proud of their contribution to our national life, which is indeed reflected in the composition of the membership of this House.
We are also proud of Canada's record of humanitarian assistance to Lebanon given with a view to helping those parties directly affected. Likewise, Canada has provided peace-keeping troops, both at the beginning of the mandate of the United Nations forces in south Lebanon or UNIFIL, and in our ongoing participation in the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization, UNTSO.

In view of the latest developments, we have taken, or are taking further measures to help in a practical way.
As already mentioned, we support President Mitterrand's initiative. In this connection we are also pursuing discussions with the permanent members of the Security Council.
On April 17, I announced tangible Canadian support for Lebanon in the form of a grant of $500,000 in response to a special appeal by the Red Cross. This money will be used to provide food, clothing, medicine and other necessities to those who have suffered from the latest events.

April 20, 1989
Statements by Ministers
Lebanon, along with Canada and France, is a member of la francophonie and at the forthcoming summit in Dakar, we will be exploring other practical ways to increase international support for Lebanon.
In view of the current situation, the Minister of Immigration has decided that removals of unsuccessful refugee claimants to Lebanon have been temporarily suspended pending clarification of the situation there.
Moreover, because of the deteriorating situation in Lebanon an Immigration officer has been sent to Cyprus to help ensure that our capability of processing Lebanese immigration applications is not interrupted by the current events.
Our embassy in Damascus remains in a close touch with events in Beirut as is possible. Indeed one locally-engaged member of the staff was in Beirut as recently as April 10.

With these and similar measures, we continue to do what we can to offer practical help to Lebanon and the Lebanese people. Ultimately, however, what is required is a political solution. For this, we must in the final analysis look to the Lebanese themselves and to others directly involved, especially Syrians, to demonstrate that their professions of support for the principles of national unity and independence are more than mere slogans. They must be matched by a genuine commitment to national reconciliation and by compromises which can lead to the election of a new president acceptable to all Lebanese communities.
As a first step, Canada repeats its call for agreement to and respect for an immediate cease-fire. The Government would welcome the views of other Hon. Members of the House and indeed of other Canadians on this tragic situation.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have risen in the House twice this week to address the situation in Lebanon. Many of my colleagues have also raised concerns about this same situation. There has to be an end to the pain and suffering that the people of Lebanon are living through day in and day out and Canada must fulfil its responsibility as a member of the international community by providing whatever assistance possible.
To my question about Canada taking the initiative and calling for an emergency debate in the Security Council, the Secretary of State insisted that a debate was not warranted at this time as, according to the Minister, it would not have any effect on this situation. Canada does have a part to play. One of the reasons I hope Canada lobbied so hard to get a seat on the Security Council was to play an active role in crises such as these. We now have this seat and we must not be meek in fully utilizing our position to maintain the level of influence in world affairs that Liberal Governments had developed in the past.
I have asked both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what the Government is doing to help those refugees who are no longer in Lebanon but who have fled to neighbouring countries. I have not received a satisfactory response from either of them. In fact, I did not get a response from the Prime Minister at all.
While we applaud the aid that Canada has offered Lebanon through the Red Cross, I suggest that Canada can do more. Earlier this week, I asked the Government to provide additional funds for those people fleeing the crisis in Lebanon who are now in neighbouring countries. This should be aid over and above the half million dollars that is to be put to use in Lebanon.
To the suggestion from my Liberal colleagues and I that Canada open an office in Cyprus so that the refugees from Lebanon would not have to go to Syria to obtain visas, there was no response. The suggestion was not even addressed. It is irresponsible to expect people fleeing a situation in which Syria is directly involved to be forced by the inadequate policies of this Government to have to go to Damascus in order to receive help in coming to Canada.
We as Parliamentarians have an obligation to take actions that will result in the restoration of peace in Lebanon. We cannot sit back and watch events unfold with eyes glazed over, unable to comprehend the reality of the vicious wars that have engulfed Lebanon for far too long.
The time for action is nigh. Why does Canada, under this rudderless Government, always wait to see what the rest of the world is doing and then say: "Me too"? Why can't the Government show some leadership? Why can't Canada take the lead and let other countries follow us?
April 20, 1989

Canada is highly respected around the world for its fairness to all people regardless of where they live and under what political system. We are highly regarded for our humanitarian response to people finding themselves in crisis situations, be it caused by earthquakes, floods or war.
Canada, under Liberal Governments, has always demonstrated an open-door policy to refugees from around the world. That is why we have been pressing the Government, through private Member's statements and in Question Period, to do something quickly to help the Lebanese refugees, be they caught within the walls of Beirut or outside the borders of Lebanon.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) for her speech on Lebanon this morning. As the Minister said, the events in Lebanon are a matter of concern to us all, and the Members of the New Democratic Party wish to express their compassion for the victims of this civil war, a war that is having increasingly tragic consequences.
We are pleased that the Canadian Government has taken some measures to help Lebanon, such as offering $500,000 in aid, and we support the efforts of the French Government, both diplomatic and humanitarian.

I am thinking particularly of the actions being taken by France to evacuate the wounded. We know that is a very dangerous undertaking on the part of the French and we appreciate that it is being done.
Having said a word of approval about what the Government has done so far in terms of the $500,000 in aid, I also want to say, along with my Liberal colleague, that this is not enough. There are many other things which the Government could have been doing up until now which it has not done.
We second the hope of the Government that the Arab Ministerial Committee will be able to bring about the kind of political negotiation for a context in which a peaceful and political solution might be found. We share the view that Syria and all Lebanese parties will have to come to their senses, that this kind of violence is not the
Statements by Ministers
way to create the kind of Lebanon that anyone wants for the future.
We also believe that the Canadian Government could have used its position on the Security Council to have shown leadership. This is a criticism that we have offered before, not only with respect to Lebanon, but with respect to other issues. Why did we lobby for two years to get on the Security Council if we were not going to be a country that takes initiative on the Security Council, whether it is calling for an emergency debate on Lebanon, or whatever the case may be. We did not go on the Security Council only to be spectators, or to wait and see what other people were going to do and then give our support to a French initiative, as in this case, or to an initiative from another country in another case? That has not been Canada's historical role. We hope that the Canadian Government will finally seize the opportunity to show the type of leadership that it so desperately wanted when it sought to be on the Security Council.
We share with all Canadians our feeling for the suffering, not only the obvious suffering of the people of Lebanon, but also the suffering of the Lebanese community here in Canada. Not so long ago this anxiety brought itself to Parliament Hill in the form of the hijacking. People must have a tremendous anxiety about what is going on in their homeland and what is happening to their friends and relatives. As the Hon. Liberal Member has stated, we urge the Government to do more in terms of facilitating and expediting the matter of dealing with the refugees seeking to leave Lebanon from Lebanon, and also those people who are in third countries. The Government must make every possible effort to deal with those refugees who are of concern to the Lebanese community here, and to everyone else.
The Government mentioned la francophonie. Both with this issue and other issues, I hope that the Government will do its best to make that a political forum to deal with this type of situation, in the way that the Commonwealth has become a forum for dealing with issues such as South Africa. At its last meeting matters such as human rights violations were very low on the agenda, and it was not a conflict-oriented agenda. If it is going to fulfil the role that it can fulfil in the world, that is something that the Government must seek to make of la francophonie.

April 20, 1989
Order Paper Questions
Finally, we join with everyone else to plead with the people of Lebanon. It is an intractable situation that, for years and years, has defied the best efforts of many countries, nations, and leaders. We say to all parties in Lebanon, particularly to Syria, that it is about time that they saw that this type of violence is not the way toward the Lebanon of the future that anybody desires. The international community is waiting and is there to help sort out the problems, if the parties to the problems will show the appropriate willingness. We hope that the Government will do everything in its power to bring about that type of situation.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada in Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines from February 10 to 19, 1989.


PETITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition in support of the Port of Churchill. This petition has been signed by a number of people from The Pas, Manitoba. The petitioners indicate their support for the full utilization of the Port of Churchill. They believe that it will improve the economy of Canada's prairie provinces, and that there is a need for the federal Government to develop the obvious potential of Canada's only inland seaport.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ensure that, at the very least, 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the Port of Churchill, and that the Government aggressively pursue additional ways to utilize this important seaport to ship exports other than grain.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: I also have a petition in which the undersigned ask the House that the federal Government be urged to increase its contributions to the provinces for the financing of health services in hospitals; to cancel the construction of two nuclear submarines worth $2 billion each; to invest these $4 billion in research in order to find a cure for AIDS, cancer and cardiovascular diseases; these funds would also enable all hospitals in Canada to acquire the equipment and instruments they need to alleviate the suffering of their patients.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the health of Canadians will be a priority for all Canadian parliaments.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to S.O. 36,1 have a petition signed by several constituents from Ottawa-Vanier and other areas, to the effect that a sales tax on music lessons would hit middle-income families which would then no longer be able to afford them. A sales tax on music lessons would penalize our young Canadians, talents would remain undiscovered, and the future of Canadian music, both nationally and internationally, would be seriously threatened.
Music teachers also play an active part in the education departments of all Canadian provinces. Their knowledge and expertise give students the skills and ability they require to be admitted to the music departments of our universities.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to consider music lessons as an educational process, thereby exempting them from the sales tax to be included in the next Budget on April 27.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received an application for an emergency debate. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.
April 20, 1989


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing concern, namely, the proposed changes in regulations affecting post-secondary education programs for aboriginal Canadians.
These proposed changes have been universally rejected by the aboriginal community across Canada. The proposed regulations, together with the attendant proposed cap on funding, would have the opposite effect of what the Government claims. If this capping is proceeded with, instead of achieving genuine equality of access to higher education, it will have the exact reverse effect.
If you rule in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I would be only too happy to participate in the debate and put forward more relevant information in this context. It is time for more justice not less justice for aboriginal Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to Hon. Members and to the public that I am quite sure there is great concern about this issue. As is appropriate, some time ago I received notice of the application that has just been heard. I have given it some very careful consideration. It is also important to understand that the Speaker must exercise some care in the granting of an emergency debate, that the issue is not whether the matter is important, but whether it can be pursued in this House in another way.
I say to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), who has eloquently spoken on this issue, as have other Members, that the Speaker views this matter as one of very great concern and importance. It is not very often that the Speaker will indicate to Hon. Members what I am about to say but, I think on this issue I will. As the Member for Vancouver South and as someone very concerned with this matter, I have also as a Member of Parliament been involved and am involved in ongoing discussions concerning this issue. I say that to indicate that I have some very great concerns, as have other Members.
It is, however, my duty to rule procedurally on this issue. I have to say that at least under the circumstances at the moment, it is not appropriate to proceed with an emergency debate. However, for all of us who are deeply concerned about the issue and who feel great concern for some of the young people involved, the fact that I cannot rule for an emergency debate does not mean that it is not unimportant. It is a very difficult issue for all of us in this House.
I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa for bringing the matter forward.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the very strong feelings on this issue, the fact that the matter should be debated in the House and that the Government should present its case for capping post-secondary funding, could you ask the House for unanimous consent to debate the issue when Orders of the Day are called later today?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member I know rises with concern and sincerity, which concern is shared by Hon. Members on all sides of the House, but we are confined in applications for emergency debates to a statement by the Member who is applying. The reason we are so confined is that the Reform Committee, which did such useful work in the last few years, made it very clear that in applications for emergency debates, it is for the most part not appropriate for even the Speaker to give reasons why the Speaker approves or disapproves or allows or does not allow an emergency debate.
Furthermore, the rules are very clear that only the Member who is applying for the emergency debate is permitted to speak on it, and there are certain restraints on what the Member can say. The difficulty with this is that the Hon. Member who has just risen-and I understand and sympathize with his concern and sincerity-is starting to argue a case. The difficulty is that under the rules we are moving into debate.
As was pointed out by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) some days ago, this creates a situation in which the other side of this question cannot be heard. In other words, I cannot recognize a Minister of the Crown to argue in reply the merits of the issue being raised. I am in a position, as Hon. Members know, in which I will have to come before this House very soon with some statements in connection with what is and what is not appropriate in an application for an emergency debate.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
I reiterate that I think all Hon. Members in this Chamber believe that this is a very serious matter. I have indicated that I would not do this very often, but as I am involved in this as well as other Hon. Members, I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to entertain any further argument on it. There are other places, and there will be other places today, where the issue can be raised, and I am quite sure Hon. Members will do so.
I hope the Hon. Member will accept that I do not dismiss the matter lightly but I am bound, as you would have me bound, by the rules of this place. I want Hon. Members and the public to understand that.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a question about whether there is unanimous consent in the House to have a debate. I would support that and I wonder whether you could-


Mr. Speaker:: This is exactly why we have the rule. The Hon. Member indicates he would give unanimous consent to debate this issue. That may well be, but the appropriate way is for the House Leaders of all three Parties and one of the Members of this House who is not in any of those three Parties to be approached and if there can be agreement, of course, the Chair will co-operate, but it is not appropriate to be debating that as a consequence of an application for an emergency debate. There is another way to do it and I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate in that way.
I recognize full well that the Hon. Member by giving his indication that he would give consent is again responding to a matter which is causing great concern to all Members of this House on both sides, as has been clearly indicated by exchanges in the House over the last number of days.

I wish to inform the House that because of the Minister's statement, Government Orders will be extended today by 19 minutes, as of one o'clock this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of
Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the agenda set forward by the Speech from the Throne lists as its first priority the building of a strong economy, fully competitive in world markets. The Speech from the Throne also highlights the environment in which we must achieve that objective: an environment of liberalized trade, requiring outward-looking trade policies; an environment of trading blocs; an environment of world-scale enterprises which have been launched to take maximum advantage of the increasing globalization of economic activity. In short, the Speech from the Throne recognizes that to succeed, Canada's economic effort must be characterized by excellence in its every facet.
We must achieve excellence in our national scientific effort, our research and development performance, and our development and acquisition and application of technology. We must achieve excellence in the innovation and creativity of our business and industrial management, and in the marketing of our goods and services on a world-wide scale. We must strive for excellence in human skills development at all levels of the education system, as well as the shop floor, but there is one over-riding requirement. Not only must we achieve and maintain excellence in these separate endeavours, we must also integrate them into a national effort, shared by the science, technological and business communities in partnership with Government at all levels.
Such an integrated national effort characterizes the thrust of the united Europe we will face in 1992, the Japan of today, the so-called Asian tigers of today and tomorrow. To compete with these world economic powers, and to maximize the opportunities arising out of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Canada can afford nothing less than to mount its own integrated national effort. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to point out that as Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I am responsible for one of the main ways to ensure the success of these efforts.
April 20, 1989

This is the new Department, Industry, Science and Technology Canada, which under this Act will have a clear mandate to direct the federal Government's efforts in science, technology and business and industrial development.

Industry, Science and Technology Canada, ISTC, is already up and running. It was built out of the integration of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, once the responsibility for regional economic development in Atlantic and western Canada was transferred from DRIE to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Department of Western Economic Diversification respectively.
Further, central to the beliefs of this Government is the recognition that industrial policy and science and technology go hand in hand, and ought to be considered together. Making science and technology an integral part of industrial policy allows Industry, Science and Technology Canada to become the industrial policy centre for the Government.
The Department has already begun its work. It is clear even at this early juncture that the new approach is working.
Canadians have the will and the ability to succeed in the tasks ahead of us. ISTC staff have the spirit, the energy and the dedication required to lead the way. I am confident that we will increasingly witness the benefits of the integration of economic development efforts that have just begun.
The mission of Industry, Science and Technology Canada is to act in full partnership with the private sector, the science community and other levels of Government to promote international competitiveness and inter-industrial excellence in Canada, to renew and rebuild our scientific, technological, managerial and production base, and to bring together in a concerted way the talents required to guarantee Canada's place in the first rank of industrial nations.
I would like to focus for a moment on one of the key words in this mandate statement. The word is partnership. Partnership means that we will participate with, and lead, rather than dictate to Canada's industrial sectors. It means we will act as a reasoned advocate within Government on its behalf. We will make every effort to ensure that Government policies, for example, in taxation, regulations, transportation and other areas of particular concern to effective science and business development are designed with the interest of these communities in
Industry, Science and Technology
mind. Partnership and advocacy mean that we must establish and maintain a very strong and comprehensive business, science information and intelligence base, so as to better inform both Government and the private sector.
Our knowledge of developments in the science, technology, business and marketing realms must be second to none and available to all.
Finally, partnership means ongoing communication, continuous dialogue with the communities we are in partnership with in the achievement of our economic goals. Consultation with our industry and science partners has in fact been instrumental in putting together the slate of programs and activities that Industry, Science and Technology Canada is carrying out.
Business activity can be viewed as a continuum of effort from basic research, through applied research, product development, production and marketing. Traditionally, Government industrial assistance has concentrated on the production portion of this continuum. We have over the years traditionally provided assistance to firms to build production facilities, and in bad times to support production facilities that would otherwise be forced to adjust to economic realities. The bulk of Government industry support funding has been spent in this way.
Our new approach to economic success says that this is no longer sufficient. We have to adjust our priorities, not only because our resources are increasingly scarce but primarily because success demands excellence in our activities all along the continuum, from science to marketing. We must work harder and smarter to keep up in with scientific research and maintain research and development. We have to acquire and apply technological advances to our products and production methods. We need the capacity to move a product from the laboratory bench through to production more quickly at the highest possible standard of quality and design, and at a price that will help ensure acceptance in the international market-place.
Further, today's global market requires businesses to have strategic and financial planning capability, to permit management of technological developments and market opportunities, rather than reaction to them. Businesses must master marketing excellence in the international market-place which today knows no geographic or cultural boundaries. It is to meet these needs in all sectors of Canadian business, including the increasingly important services sector, which provides so much of our unemployment, that the activities and programs of ISTC have been designed.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology

A list of activities has been drawn up to link pure science and commercial success. The Government has recognized that we absolutely must invest in Canada's scientific and technological base to ensure our economic future.
Various initiatives show this: the creation of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the allocation of $1.3 billion announced by the Prime Minister in January 1988 at the National Conference on Technology and Innovation.

There is no aspect of economic development today that does not depend on science and technology. Awareness of the vital role of science and science skills is a prerequisite to increasing our capacity to exploit technology. Success in this endeavour will require a concerted effort with the business and science communities.
One of ISTC's principal concerns is to mobilize this effort. A departmental priority is to bend its efforts toward promotion of a more science-oriented culture in Canada, to ensure an adequate supply of highly-qualified personnel in order to exploit the potential industrial benefits of technology, and to develop industrial opportunities directly from scientific endeavours.
ISTC has responsibility for national leadership under the national science and technology policy, and implementation of Innovaction, Canadian Strategy for Science and Technology. Innovaction initiatives include the federal microelectronics strategy, the Canadian manufacturing and advanced technology exchange, the national network of centres of excellence, the Canada scholarships program, funding the University Research Granting Councils and a public awareness program for science and technology.
Under Innovaction $240 million has been devoted to the national network of centres for excellence program. Two-hundred million dollars has been added the base budgets of the University Research Granting Council. The $80 million Canadian scholarship program is now beginning its second successful year of encouraging young people, particularly women, who are under represented in these fields, to take up careers in science and engineering.
Following naturally upon our efforts in the science field, the Department has launched a major effort to promote the development and application of strategic technologies. Strategic technologies are those like biotechnology, advanced industrial materials, information technology that will impact, not only on one sector or enterprise, but also on a broad range of industry and business in one way or another. In order to ensure that Canadian firms benefit from all that these technologies have to offer, we have, in consultation with business, developed government-wide strategies in these fields. A cornerstone of these strategies is the concept of strategic technology alliances.
The Department is moving to support alliances among companies, among groups of companies and research institutions and between groups of Canadian companies and foreign partners. These alliances may be established to plan and to perform precompetitive research and development or to develop leading edge technology applications.
Another key thrust of ISTC will be a series of industry sector competitiveness initiatives. ISTC is joining in partnership with selected industry sectors to carry out new initiatives to improve competitiveness.

In the past, the Government relied a great deal on general funding programs in its efforts to help industry adjust to change. Our new approach is to use more effective instruments designed in cooperation with industry and based on a more balanced set of policies, services and financial assistance programs that are more oriented to the needs and possibilities of a particular sector.

Pursuing the logic of our widened purview of the whole continuum of business activity, we have redesigned and rebuilt our services to business in all parts of Canada. A major activity of ISTC is business development and information services. We recently announced the establishment of international trade centres in our provincial offices. These centres will assist Canadian businesses wishing to penetrate export markets and provide a one-stop shopping service that our exporters have long been seeking.
April 20, 1989

One of the important functions of the provincial offices of the Department is to be the first point of contact with Government for the business community. As part of that function they will act as gatherers and disseminators of necessary information on market prospects and requirements. The total effort of the activities I have described is to provide leadership, advocacy, support and encouragement for development of the standard of excellence required by our entire economic thrust, from science to success in world markets.
While I have been talking about the concerns and responsibilities of Industiy, Science and Technology Canada, in terms of the broad spectrum of industrial and commercial activity, there are a number of departmental priorities that deserve special attention. ISTC places a high priority on entrepreneurship and the dynamism of the small business community. The national policy on entrepreneurship announced last year will focus the direction of much of the Department's programs and activities.
Another area of special attention is the tourism sector to which ISTC will devote a dedicated effort to promotion of Canada's attractions in foreign markets. ISTC is also responsible for programs to assist native economic development in Canada. As the Speech from the Throne noted, the Government is concerned that our native peoples participate fully in our economy and will be extending its programs to assist native economic development.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, ISTC is responsible for economic development programs in Ontario and Quebec. Because this is a large task and because we wish to distinguish regional development from industrial policy, we are setting up a separate agency, outside ISTC, which will serve the regional development interests of Ontario and Quebec.

I began my address with a reference to the opening of the Speech from the Throne. I would like to end with a quote from its conclusion:
As a strong, skilled and confident people, Canadians will find a greater place in world commerce and trade, in technological innovation, and in scientific development and discovery. The first
Industry, Science and Technology
task-will be to help prepare the way for this viable and dynamic
Canada.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Minister on his nomination to a position which is among the most important in the Cabinet. That said, Mr. Speaker, he does not really have the means to do his job.

As the Official Opposition what we are trying to do, quite frankly, is to assist the Minister in getting the means at his disposal to do the job which he has created for himself and which has been set out for him. We are very upset at what we have seen in terms of the lack of priority in funding for his operations. We do not think that he will have the means or ability to carry out his mandate, a mandate which is perhaps the most important of any in the Government today.
The number of employees in the Minister's Department is being cut from 2,618 to 2,260. The operating budget of the Department is being cut from $216 million to $179 million. The money the Minister will have available to carry out his mandate is being cut from $965 million to $427 million.
Let us first look at regional development programs which are a critical part of the mandate of the Department. The Economic Regional Development Agreements have been cut. It is important that we make a distinction here in what is happening in the Department and what is happening with other development agencies such as ACOA, FEDNOR and the Western Diversification Fund.
On January 18, 1988, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said in this House: "The Economic Regional Development Agreements will continue at the same rate of spending now in effect". As of March 31, 1989, there was a total of $1,613 billion in ERDA agreements which had expired and which have not been renewed. This is in spite of the fact that regional economic disparities remain one of the great blights on the Canadian economic scene. For example, in the Province of Newfoundland today the unemployment rate is 18.8 per cent. There are now more Newfoundlanders living outside of Newfoundland than in Newfoundland because they cannot find jobs there.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Cutting back on regional development programs such as ERDAs is a travesty to the Canadians in those regions. It is also a travesty for all right-thinking Canadians because if we are to have a strong economy in the future we must have strong regions. Our economy can be only as strong as its weakest region. Our workforce can be only as strong as our weakest Canadian. Our commitment to create these opportunities must be matched, Mr. Minister, by the funding necessary to make things happen. What is happening with these agencies that have been hived off from your purview which can no longer be part of the incredible mandate which you have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would address the Chair.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I would be very pleased to address the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
During the last election, what happened in these agencies was that one-third of the $1.5 billion allocated to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for a five-year period was spent in the eight months leading up to the election. How can we have an industrial strategy and policy for all of Canada when these funds are taken out of the purview of the Minister responsible for creating these types of new economic opportunities right across Canada?
For example, the Minister responsible for the Western Diversification Fund is the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer). The Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay). The mandate is not with the Minister opposite whose job it is to create industrial opportunities right across Canada.
When we have cut-backs coming out of their Departments which will see funding reduced from $1.3 billion to about $250 million according to officials from his Department, we have great cause for concern. It is another example of how pious rhetoric becomes empty in the execution.
There is going to be some sleight of hand carried on in terms of the figures that are presented to us. They are going to say that they have cut by more than 60 per cent the funding available to this Minister to do his job, but they have given it to the regions. We had a solemn commitment from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)
that he made on his way to the Economic Summit in Venice when he announced that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency would be funded with "new money to the tune of $200 million a year". We are going to count every penny to make sure that no money disappears as this shell game is being played by the Minister's office.
Let us look at the issue of industrial adjustment due to the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Long before this deal was signed, we had warnings from the Economic Council of Canada, from the Bank of Nova Scotia and from others as to what industries in Canada were going to take a tremendous beating because of this Free Trade Agreement: textiles, footwear and clothing, household furniture, major appliances, food processing, auto parts, electrical and electronic equipment just to name a few. Industrial restructuring, worker adjustment was foreseen long before the deal was signed.
The Macdonald Commission said:
A Free Trade Agreement should incorporate explicit provisions that reflect the proportionately greater cost for adjustment that Canadians will face. Since investors, workers and managers will begin to plan their strategies for adjustment even before a final agreement is reached, it is essential that an overall adjustment assistance framework be worked out well in advance of concluding a formal treaty.
What has this Government done? Nothing. It appointed the de Grandpre Commission well after that agreement was concluded. That Commission reported only a short time ago. It emphasized a lot of the programs that have been put forward by the Official Opposition for worker assistance, for worker adjustment. This was information that the Government already had. Has the Government introduced or implemented one of those recommendations to assist in this adjustment?
On November 24, 1988, the Right Hon. Prime Minister
said:
I want to tell Canadians we shall ensure innovative and generous adjustment and retraining programs will be introduced whenever and wherever required with the chief priority being the well- being of the individual Canadian worker and his family.
As yet we have seen no provisions that match the rhetoric.
In the Minister's speech, he did not mention the tragedy that is being faced by so many workers who are being thrown out of their jobs today. I could go down the list, but to date we have identified probably 4,000 to 5,000 jobs that have been lost in Canada directly attributable to the Free Trade Agreement.
April 20, 1989


An Hon. Member:: How many created?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Inglis plant in Toronto is a typical example. It was producing one of the finest washers in Canada. It will be closing and production is going to be shifted to Whirlpool's head office plant in Ohio. It will serve the Canadian market fully out of there. The Minister talks about being able to intervene in a constructive way in the Canadian economy. Has he even met with the union that is trying to keep the plant going and take over production for all of the North American market of the line that is being discontinued? Would he be good enough, if he has not already taken the initiative, to sit down with these people and try to work out something that will be good for Canadians?
In Bill C-3 there is a section which talks about special assistance that will be available by order in council to industries or companies selected by the Government. What is the record of intervention by this Government on behalf of individual companies and individual workers in difficulty?
Let us look, for example, at Lumonics, a world leader in laser technology. It could not get the funding in Canada to carry on the expansion that it needed to become a big player on the global scene. In desperation it sold out to the Japanese corporation Sumitomo. If we cannot give the edge to these Canadian threshold companies that have developed the world's leading edge in technology so that they can be Canadian controlled and tackle the world market, we are in desperate shape. We will not have an industrial policy for the benefit of Canadians. It is far too easy to cheaply sell our world class technology, developed in Canada with public money, to foreign firms.
Connaught is Canada's leading biotechnical firm. It is the maker of the Salk vaccine and many other medicines that are sold around the world. Under this Government, 51.6 per cent is being bought out by a French company that is controlled by the French Government. It is a fundamental strategy of its public policy to control this leading player in the world technology scene.
I believe the federal Government is ceasing its involvement in a program where it provides generic programs and assistance to all Canadians who meet the criteria and gives the back-up which only Governments can give, be it an American Government, French Government, Japanese Government or any other Government. The federal Government is abandoning its
Industry, Science and Technology
supportive role for industry and instead has decided that it will intervene on a case-by-case basis. The Government has also dramatically reduced the funds that will be available to less than half their present levels.
The Government knows that when it attempts to intervene on a case-by-case basis it will run up against the Free Trade Agreement. The moment it gives specific assistance to any particular company, the Americans will cry foul. That type of subsidy will become countervail-able under American law and the Government will say it cannot take action because it signed a sacred accord with the Americans which now prevents it from pursuing the policies that it would like to pursue. It will say that it can no longer pursue these policies to assist specific Canadian industries and firms because these will contravene the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
One of the major tools that was critical to the Government in order to go about the pious tasks outlined by the Minister was the ability to assume a creative role of intervention, assistance and support in working with Canadian firms.
I also see a danger of favouritism. The assistance programs provided for under Clause 9, known as special assistance, are made by Order in Council rather than by meeting broadly publicized criteria for which any Canadian can apply. They are direct political decisions. The possibility of favouritism is great.
We have seen in the past that the Government is not above using economic levers to achieve other policy objectives. We have seen frigates being awarded in return for support for a free trade agreement. We have seen offers being made of extensions of the Trans-Canada Highway if there is support for Meech Lake. This is the wrong direction for adjustment assistance to take.
It may be argued that the Government will exercise its discretion in a non-political way. The one case in which the Government has intervened directly in recent days on behalf of a company is in the case of American Express. In spite of the fact that five of the nine guidelines for the admission of foreign banks to Canada were offended and broken, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that American Express would be allowed to come to Canada, that is until we raised a clamour in the House. That is the type of political patronage and opportunism for friends that the Government is prepared to carry out. It has demonstrated that this will be its hallmark. American Express was the company that led the fight in the United States for free trade.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
The Minister did not address the issue of foreign ownership. Presently, there is a $25 million threshold under Investment Canada. There were 606 applications made to Investment Canada over the period July, 1985, to December, 1988. All of those applications for the change of control of a Canadian company were approved by Investment Canada. We do not believe that opening up Canada for take-overs by foreign firms will be in the long term economic interests of Canadians.
We have seen their record of performance. Foreign firms do not export as much as Canadian firms. Their level of research and development is abysmal. We cannot work with them in the same way to ensure that their loyalties are primarily to Canada rather than to their foreign parent corporation or to the host country of their foreign parent corporation.
According to the Free Trade Agreement, rather than the $25 million threshold, there is a $150 million threshold so that any take-over of a company with anything under $150 million assets will not be subject to review.
When an American firm takes over a Canadian firm, as is happening at an accelerated rate, we can no longer impose conditions to ensure that it has a world product mandate here in Canada. We can no longer ensure that Canadian supplies are used in the production of goods in Canada. We have given up the right to give duty draw-backs to encourage manufacturing by foreign firms in Canada.
Once those firms are here they are given national treatment and are treated just the same as Canadian firms, which means no conditions can be imposed upon them to ensure they do not sell out the Canadian operation to other foreigners.
Even in the United States today there is a growing awareness that corporations should have some degree of local control. The Florio amendment in the United States led to the review of all high technology take-overs in the United States. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment has wide discretionary powers and has become actively involved in screening foreign take-overs. This is what has happened in the Fujitsu bid to take over Fairchild, in the key semi-conductor area in the United States. If the United States considers semi-conductors to
be critical to its economic future, why does this Government not consider biosciences and the medicines produced by Connaught or the laser technology by Lumonics to be critical to our economic future here in Canada?
The Minister talked at great length about the need for science and technology. He is not alone in talking about this topic. On March 4, 1987, the Prime Minister at the University of Waterloo, said: "For some years I have been speaking and writing about the urgent and pressing necessity of increasing our national commitment to our R and D." He said as well that that was why his Government put science and technology at the top of the national agenda. He has been controlling that national agenda since 1984.
What has happened to R and D? In 1984, the Prime Minister promised us that he would double it by 1988. It was then at about 1.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. It is now at about 1.35 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. It has gone down in spite of these pious declarations.
The Prime Minister might try to tell us that this is the fault of the private sector. What has happened? The Government commitment and share of the total spending on R and D has gone down from 37 per cent in 1984 to about 30 per cent in 1988. So much for the Government's pious commitments to more R and D.
Again, we have grievous concerns about the extent of research and development that will be done by foreign firms in Canada. When you look across the spectrum, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you have done many times, you will see that in almost every industry in Canada, the level of research and development that is undertaken by foreign controlled firms fall well short of that which is undertaken by Canadian controlled firms. In mining, it is less than half; in wood-based products, it is about two thirds; in metals it is about 80 per cent; in machinery and transportation, it is about 20 per cent. For equipment that is electrical or electronic, the percentage of sales that goes into R and D by Canadian controlled firms is close to 15 per cent. For foreign controlled firms, it is less than 3 per cent. I could go on and on.
April 20, 1989

Industry, Science and Technology
This is the kind of problem we are facing. The Minister, in his speech today, did not come to grips with it at all. He did not once mention the question of foreign control.
Clause 15(2) of this Bill deals with the provision of loan guarantees, stock options and other ways that the Government might intervene to assist certain Canadian firms. I did not hear once from the Minister about his philosophy how he expects and wants Canadian firms to play a role of partnership with Government.
On this side of the House, we have very big concerns about straight grants, straight loan guarantees or straight loans to private sector firms. These loans or grants put the Government in a no-win situation. If the companies are successful, the Government does not get its money back. If the companies fail, the Government's money is gone forever. If we are to have a strong partnership between Government and the private sector, we believe that the Government should consider very closely the use of stocks and shares or stock options. If the companies do not work out, the Government stands as a secured creditor with other creditors. However, if the partnerships do work effectively, all Canadians can benefit by the increased value of the shares. In other words, the Government can make a profit. It will have more funds to re-invest in other Canadian enterprises.
We have seen a tremendous preoccupation on the part of government Members with cutting the deficit. They have been bom again. This is the Government that talked about the deficit in 1984 and which, in its four short years in office, doubled our national debt. Now it has a tremendous fixation with the concept of a quick fix for the deficit problems. It even has a Minister responsible for privatization.
Again, we do not see this being put forward as part of the Government's national strategy for promoting Canada's economy by the Minister. It falls into the hands of another Minister. We want to put the Government on notice that there might be some good Canadian companies it intends to privatize which are producing at good profit levels.
Let us suppose that the Government sells off a good Canadian Crown corporation for $100 million. Let us suppose that the Government uses all that money to reduce the deficit. What the Government is saving is the interest rate at say 10 per cent on $100 million. If the company that was sold was producing income levels of more than 10 per cent and, in addition, was paying income tax or other taxes of any sort, then Canadians
would be the net losers. We want the Government to take a very business-like and pragmatic approach to how it deals with these assets, and we also want the Government to look at whether or not the assets have an ongoing role in Canada's public policy.
In conclusion, the Minister's speech contained very little with which we could disagree. It contained a lot of pious declarations about the need for a strong economy for Canadian firms to be competitive. It is not with these sentiments that we disagree. We disagree with the hypocrisy the Government has displayed in taking concrete action to support these pious words.
We have heard the Prime Minister's declarations in the past regarding research and development. We heard how it was so important to our future. Yet, in his four years of Government, it has decreased. We have heard pious declarations about ensuring that Canada's economic regions that are less favoured than others are given fair opportunities. Now we see an incredible cut-back in funding to those regions. We have heard the Government's commitment to keeping jobs in Canada for Canadians. Yet under the Free Trade Agreement, at least 5,000 have been lost in the last couple of months. No programs have been put in place. There have been no consultations with these firms to help see what could be done. There has been no examination by the Government of what might possibly be done with companies such as Inglis, working to ensure its production in Canada on an on-going basis.
The Minister spoke about his Government's role in providing an infrastructure for Canadian businesses and for Canadian economic opportunities. He talked about transportation. Again, the Government's actions do not meet its words. The Government is closing down VIA Rail, and in June it will be closing down Air Canada's flights into Stephenville, Newfoundland.
We heard the Minister's pious declarations about how the Government is going to work to ensure that there are generous tax policies in the Budget that will assure there will be research and development here in Canada. This Government cut the funding and tax incentives for research and development. The Government was criticized by its own commissioner, Mr. de Grandpre, who stated that in terms of government support for R and D we are at an all-time low, and at a comparative disadvantage with every other industrialized country in the world. We in Canada are going backwards. The performance does not live up to the rhetoric.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
In conclusion, we urge the Minister to stand up for a strong Canada and a strong economy. It is not a shame or a crime for governments to sit down with business and plan our economic future. Some businesses have their own plans for the future five or ten years, and those that do not seldom survive. The Government can play a unique role in our economy that business alone cannot. Canada does not have the large defence spending that the United States has, nor do we want it. The Government has a role to play in encouraging research and development, and encouraging education and training that will make us world leaders.
It is a travesty that 70 per cent of Canadian young people leave high school and go into the workforce without post-secondary education or any type of job training. We cannot compete with the Japanese and the Americans with a record that is so abysmal in this area. Our most important and precious resource is our human resource. The Government pays lip service to that, but it has capped the educational spending for native Canadians, the people who are most desperate to have the education.
The Government has a critical role to play in ensuring that incentives are there for Canadians to invest in our businesses. We await the Budget with bated breath to see what the Government will do to encourage worker participation in investing in companies, and to see what it will do to encourage outside investors to invest in Canadian companies that will carry us to new leading edges in technology. We want to see what special provisions will be made to encourage Canadians to own and control their own companies. We do not believe that the Government has been correct in stating that the marketplace alone will dictate, and that we do not have a role to intervene or interfere. We believe that Canada can only be strong if it gets rid of the syndrome of selling off its best companies to foreigners. There is more foreign control in Canada than in any other developed country in the world.
We will continue to maintain our low levels of research and development, and exports, and keep selling off our new leading technology firms, such as Lumonics and Connaught, unless the Government recognizes the realities and acts for the benefit of Canadians. Unless the Minister is prepared to match his rhetoric today with concrete actions in the future, and unless the entire
Government is prepared to stand behind the policies to which the Minister has paid lip service, but for which he does not have the means, the programs which have already been cut will suffer even greater cuts, if we believe the officials in the Minister's Department. Unless the Government will look at the concept of creating a strong Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time expired approximately one minute ago. I would request that he conclude his remarks.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to all Members for speaking over my time.
In conclusion, above all else we want the Government to stand up for Canada and to put Canada first.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill comes before us and provides us with the opportunity to give an over-all assessment of the industrial policy and the regional development policy of the Government. In that sense, it is an important Bill with respect to broad areas of policy and broad areas of principle, despite the fact that in other respects it is simply a reorganization of the Department which is at issue.
Members of the New Democratic Party recognize the incredibly serious challenges which face the country in the industrial sector and in economic planning over the next 10 to 20 years. We are facing an international context which is becoming very much tougher for a country such as Canada.
In the immediate post-war period, having escaped World War II's direct damaging effect on our industrial infrastructure, Canada could expect to be a powerful and significant player in the international exchanges that are made economically throughout the world. On the basis of that, and on the basis of the tremendous resource exports that we developed in the period after World War II, for a far too brief period of time Canada achieved a level of full employment which gave to the people a sense of security, and a sense that their lives could be built without the constant threat of being dismissed, or being faced with shutdowns or disruption to their lives which would force them in turn to disrupt their families and their communities.
April 20, 1989

Those times, unfortunately, have disappeared. They have disappeared in large part, I think, not because of changes in the world economy, though those changes have taken place-they have been the challenge-but because both the Parties in this House that have formed federal Governments have not been prepared to meet those challenges and do something creative to give us the kind of industrial base which would provide full employment for Canadians. In my view, it is perhaps the most fundamental, the most damaging and the most shameful dereliction of duty on the part of the Liberal and Conservative Parties when they have been in power. They have not been prepared to say that the industrial future of Canada matters, first of all, and secondly, that Government has a responsibility to provide leadership in setting it right. Instead federal Governments have sat back and have left the initiative to the private sector. Governments have been prepared to have programs but those programs have essentially offered give-aways and bribes to private companies to do things which the private companies most likely would have done in any event. So we have faced a situation where the abdication of responsibility has been massive.
It is time that this Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, which is finally being established, takes as its responsibility a commitment to Canada to see to it that industrial development becomes a priority which is thought out, worked at systematically, and which is built in this country so that we have a real future for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people and for the many of those who will be coming on to our labour markets in the future.
There has been a great debate in some parts of the world about whether the manufacturing sector matters in the future of our economies, those of western Europe, North America and Japan. This question, by being asked, has demonstrated the lack of responsibility which has been there on the part of many Governments throughout the OECD countries to answer that question by saying, yes, manufacturing does matter; building an industrial base in this country and right across it does matter because that is the basis upon which we will achieve the full employment which matters to people and to communities on a human level.
Industry, Science and Technology
As I think of this Government's record so far, I have to say that the record is poor. It is a record which has taken some initiatives, but the Government has not pursued those initiatives. It has not had a sense of priority concerning the structural base of our economy. One simply has to look at the revolving door of Ministers who have had responsibility for this area of policy over the last four and a half years. We started with Sinclair Stevens. We moved to Michel Cote, to the present Minister responsible for the Treasury Board, and then we moved to the present Minister. I congratulate him on his appointment, but I challenge him to take this Ministry seriously, to see to it that there is a long-term commitment on the part of the Government to building a solid industrial basis from which we can develop a full economy for Canadians.
One can think of sector after sector in which this has not taken place. For myself, coming from Windsor, it is perhaps the failures in the auto industry which have struck me most forcibly. Again, it has been a failure on the part of the Government and the previous Government. The previous Liberal Government of Mr. Trudeau set up a task force on the auto industry which brought employers, employees and parts producers together to make recommendations.
They made a series of excellent recommendations, perhaps the most fundamental of which was that there should be a notion, a commitment to Canadian content to which all significant importers of automotive parts and vehicles into this country should commit themselves. This would have given us from 40,000 to 60,000 extra jobs in Canada. That suggestion was ignored by the Liberal Government of the past. It has been ignored by this Government since 1984, despite the fact that a Parliamentary committee chaired by the present Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) came to the conclusion that, yes, there did have to be much more pressure put on Japanese and Korean car producers to ensure that they met commitments to Canadian content in this country.
Now that the Minister is in a position to take some responsibility for the Government's actions, I ask him to make certain that he will himself push to see that the unanimous recommendations of the committee get taken seriously and are put into effect. One can make the same point with respect to the forestry sector of our economy, because what we have seen from the Government is a series of actions which have hurt rather than

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
helped the Canadian forestry sector. This is a series of actions, the worst of which, frankly, was the voluntary acceptance of a 15 per cent export duty which seriously damaged employment prospects and growth prospects in the forestry sector right across this country.
The same point can be made with respect to pulp and paper, where the very serious implications of a takeover of Consolidated Bathhurst by Stone Containers of Chicago seem not even to have been looked at by the Minister who is responsible for Investment Canada, that is, the Minister who is responsible for this Bill.
The same point can be made with respect to steel. The steel industry has faced constant threats, constant retaliatory action from the United States in terms of trade, especially with respect to specialist steel. This Government has not at any stage taken action to pull together the steel industry of this country to try to work out a joint strategy, not just to trade but a joint strategy with respect to future investment, to future support for that industry, to future training assistance, if that were required.
I have just come back from talking with one of the largest steel companies in this country, and there is certainly not, from what they tell me, any sense of interaction between Government and the steel industry with respect to the whole broad set of production, employment, technology and environmental issues which face this industry in the future.
The same thing is true of textiles. With respect to textiles there has been consultation. There has not been agreement. The textile industry has felt itself to have been sacrificed in the negotiations over free trade.


An Hon. Member:: And the printing industry.


Steven W. Langdon: That is not the only industry. As my colleague has suggested, it is true of printing. It is true of the food industry, food processing.


An Hon. Member:: Apparel.


Steven W. Langdon: It is also true of most of the apparel industry, which is quite opposed to the approach which the Government has taken in the negotiations over free trade as they affect apparel.
I suggest to the Minister, who is throwing out interjections, that he should spend some talking to the apparel industry. Some of them are small businesses, I say to the Minister. That is what that Minister is responsible for. It is not just the typical manufacturing industries with which Government should be concerned. It is also industries which are less traditional, like tourism. The tourist industry has essentially been abandoned by this Government. There are various ERDA agreements which funnel assistance through the provinces. But the tourist industry is no longer even eligible for help from this Ministry with respect to the kinds of grants and assistance which the Ministry provides to other parts of the economy.
Finally, in looking at some of these sectors, I note the machinery sector of our economy. Surely, by this point we have to realize that you cannot be a sophisticated high technology industrial country without giving real support, real help in the development of a machinery sector. The machinery firms in my constituency tell me absolutely bluntly that what they get from this Government is nothing but hassle. They get harassment in terms of tariff decisions, which I have to spend a good deal of my time trying to straighten out. They get harassment in terms of taxation problems, which also end up in my constituency office. If we did not have at least a few people on this side of the House who are concerned about this sector of our country's economy, so basic to building up a future for us in Canada, the machinery sector would be in much worse shape than it is at this stage.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Steven W. Langdon: What do we aim at as a Party in the face of this kind of consistent pattern of failure on the part of the Government in trying to carry its sectorial policies forward? For ourselves, we see the necessity of a highly competitive, high-tech entreprenurial basis to much of our economy so that it can compete internationally. There is no disagreement with respect to that, despite the attempts of the Government to suggest that somehow the New Democratic Party is representative of 20th Century Luddites. But we have a commitment which this Government has not demonstrated to that kind of high-tech part of Canada's economy.
April 20, 1989

Industry, Science and Technology
Secondly, we have a commitment to seeing to it that the the raw material resources of this country are used fully within Canada, instead of being made inputs to the United States manufacturing machine. We want to see the jobs from processing here in this country. We want to see a potential for zinc, which is dug out of the ground in northern Ontario or in the Yukon, to be used in zinc alloy production in Canada. We want to see copper used as an input to copper wire production, heavy electrical cables, in this country, not outside of this country so that the jobs disappear along with the resources. We also want to see that the basic building blocks of a solid industrial core are developed within Canada.
I mentioned the machinery industry as one of these basic building blocks. The chemical sector is another sector that deserves to have much more attention paid to it than has been the case on the part of the Government. If we take these basic building blocks and develop them, out of that will come the type of full employment which is so crucial to our country's future. As the previous speaker has noted, we have perhaps the world's worst industrial adjustment system, with respect to adjustment compensation to workers who are hit by trade changes which this Government has put into effect. Compensation simply does not exist.
We also had very little in the way of adjustment planning to respond to the threats of free trade. All we have to do is look to Europe where we can see that there are all kinds of creative, exciting and workable industrial adjustment interventions that our Government could be taking but is refusing to take. Instead, it is leaving things very much to the mercy of the market.
On our part, we also believe there have to be rules concerning plant shut-downs. It is unforgivable that an American company should decide to transfer production from its Canadian subsidiary in Toronto to its American subsidiary as a consequence of free trade and be able to get away with it scot-free. That is what has happened in the case of Inglis. That is what is happening in the case of Gillette. It is what is happening in the case of Northern Telecom. It should not be possible in a humane country, a country which has labour laws that make sense.

I want to tell this Government that we must change the rules dealing with the problem of plant shut-downs throughout the country.
It is also very important, Mr. Speaker, that we, in Canada, have control over our own economy.

In case after case, the Government has decided simply to let slip absolutely crucial surrenders of control in key parts of the Canadian economy. Mitel is now controlled by a British firm, despite a tremendous amount of government money having gone into the establishment of it. I have talked about Stone Containers and its takeover of Consolidated Bathurst. The loss of Connaught Labs, a part of this country's technological history, a part of our employment future, is something which is unforgivable.
The fact is that Investment Canada, for which the Minister is responsible, has operated simply as a rubber stamp with respect to takeovers. As I view these various takeovers, there has not been a single one rejected during the period of Investment Canada's existence. How can one take seriously an investment review system that has not found it necessary to review even one of thousands of takeovers and say: "That one does not make sense for Canada."? What we have here is in fact a rubber stamp.
We also must have serious support for small business. I direct these remarks directly to the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Hockin) who is now in a position to take some serious steps in this ministry, see to it that it does actually operate to help small-scale firms in the country. The member of our Party who is responsible for small business will be talking about the subject in more detail. However, I hope the Minister will take this task seriously. What I see in my constituency, which is full of small businesses, is that Government does not provide the type of help and support to them which is essential.
We also have to see creative reviews of public enterprise in Canada. There is a pathological rejection on the part of the Government of anything that smacks of socialism despite the fact that in country after country we find effective, profitable and humane public enterprises that are doing an excellent job for people. We in Canada have a long tradition of building such enterprises, mostly at the provincial level, because the federal level has not been prepared to do much except act as a band-aid merchant. The reality is that there is a potential there and I hope the Government recognizes it.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Perhaps the most important point to stress is that any industrial policy which is going to make sense for Canada has to be one which stresses regional fairness. Personally, I must talk about my visit to Cape Breton Island where I saw the tremendous differences in opportunities that exist for people in Cape Breton as compared with those for people in Ontario. It is simply not right. It should not be possible in a country like ours to have this kind of disparity going on generation after generation, so that there are people in Cape Breton who survive perhaps six or eight to a family on the single old age pension cheque of one member of the family who is old enough to receive that pension. It is not right.
It is not right either that on Vancouver Island we have rates of unemployment that are at the immense levels they are in parts of the island. The damage which has resulted from the lack of a serious strategy in the forestry sector is evident on Vancouver Island. The Government has to respond to that.
I could also speak personally about canvassing in Edmonton, the Acting Speaker's home area, and finding people as I went from door to door who had been out of work for months because of the collapse of job opportunities in that city. I could also talk personally about the tremendous disparity that one finds even in the richest part of Newfoundland, in St. John's itself. The difference between life in St. John's for a person graduating or leaving high school and the opportunities that are available to the same person in the City of Toronto are differences which simply should not exist in a humanitarian and fair country.

I can say the same thing about the Province of Quebec where, in many communities, the unemployment rate is so high that young people cannot find jobs. That situation is just as unacceptable in the rest of the country. We cannot have a united country if young men and women are discriminated against and if people living in Quebec do not enjoy the same opportunities as residents of Ontario. It is unfair!
I think the worst thing about this Bill, and the reason we will be opposing it, is that this Bill is part of an ongoing attack with respect to regional development in this country. We already have a freeze with respect to renegotiation of economic and regional development agreements with the provinces throughout this country. Seven provinces and two territories are affected. There are 44 sub-agreements to a total of $918.3 million which has lost its reality as of March 31 and which this Government is not carrying forward to renegotiation at this stage.
We also have stories now circulating with comments coming from the officials within the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, as it still is, saying that there will be more cuts and that these cuts are going to affect the hard-hit regions of this country, regions that were promised prosperity, thanks to free trade. They are now being given the reality of cut-backs, more unemployment, more broken promises as a consequence of what has taken place on the part of the Government. But most of all what we have in this Bill is one more step with respect to the dismantling of any over-all responsibility in this country for regional development. In that sense, this Bill is one more backward step for regional fairness in Canada.
All of this breaks the promise that was made last October in Saint John by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said, "The federal Government has a responsibility for regional development in the interest of national unity as well as in the interest of fairness. We cannot have two Canadas in the economic sense any more than in the constitutional sense".
This Department used to be responsible for all co-ordination. That is destroyed by this Bill. It is not part of this Bill. We will therefore fight this Bill, and we will do so at this stage by moving an amendment. I move, seconded by the Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-3 because it fails to clearly define federal Government responsibility for regional development and specifically fails to reflect the requirement of s. 36 (l)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that Parliament is committed to ''furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities"."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 20, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for bringing forth the motion so the Table and the Chair could take a look at it before he reads it. Therefore, I have read the motion and find it in order.
Therefore I shall call it 1.17 p.m. The House will now adjourn until two o'clock this day.
At 1.17 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in 1976, Leonard Peltier, an American Indian, was fraudulently extradited to the United States as a result of a false affidavit submitted by the FBI to A Canadian Court. This fraud was only discovered after Leonard Peltier was returned to the United States and tried in the American courts.
It is totally unacceptable that Canada should tolerate such action from the United States, its neighbour and ally.
This week, the Committee for the Defence of Leonard Peltier is demonstrating on Parliament Hill, asking the Canadian Government to demand the return of Peltier to Canada for a new and fair hearing.
The committee is also making an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to cancel Peltier's extradition order and have him returned to this country. I ask the Government and the House to pay serious attention to this sad episode in Canada-U.S. relations and to support the corrective action proposed by the Leonard Peltier Defence Committee.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 Atlantic Canada has experienced
tremendous economic growth under this Government. Many of the difficulties we experienced in the past have been addressed. I do not want to see this trend diminished in any way.
Our present interest rate policy, which I do not question, is being used to combat inflationary pressures. Inflation, however, is not the problem in Atlantic Canada. Continued growth will be our challenge in the coming years.
To achieve this it is imperative that the economic initiatives and infrastructure programs currently in place for Atlantic Canada be continued and enhanced.
I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to recognize the fragility of Atlantic Canada in his upcoming Budget and ask him not to impose austerity measures which, coupled with high interest rates, will destroy that which we have achieved in the past four years.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Central America continue to serve on the front lines of the struggle for social justice.
As you may be aware, in El Salvador last night treasury police officers entered an office of an organization involved in refugee settlement and detained approximately 50 peace brigade workers, among them an Australian woman and her three-month old baby.
In Guatemala, the human rights abuses continue. It is into this atmosphere that four members of the RUOG the Guatemalan opposition, have re-entered Guatemala in order to participate in a national dialogue to bring about peace.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to make it clear to both Governments the importance that this country places on human rights in that region, in particular to condemn the action of the treasury police in El Salvador, and in Guatemala to give clear assurances that the rights of the four members of the RUOG will be preserved.

April 20, 1989



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Harrica-na group of Amos is taking on the automobile subcontracting market and wants to increase its forestry equipment exports to Latin America and Asia.
The Arcand brothers are also interested in investment opportunities in Chile, which is undertaking a major forestry development program.
Last year, sales of the Harricana group amounted to $41.2 million, up 74 per cent from the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Quebecers should watch the performance of the Harricana group managers and employees in Abitibi.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, last year some Members of the House and the RCMP were made aware of circumstances concerning alleged breaches of trust with respect to House of Commons budgets and funds.
Another Member of the House has now been charged with Criminal Code offences and it is essential that we in this House assure to the accused a fair hearing and that innocence will be presumed until then.
However, every healthy institution, and in particular the institution of this House of Commons, must have the means of assuring its own good order and discipline. Even a local hockey team has the means of applying order and discipline in its organization.
Initiatives to deal with such matters are met by Government statements in sequences such as: "Under police investigation," "sub-judice" and, after the trial, "The matter is closed".
We, the Members who sit in arguably the most powerful institution in this country, are seen by our voters to be totally impotent.
The subcontracting out to provincial courts of serious matters such as these detracts from the strength and honour of the House and its Members.
I respectfully suggest that the burden of such housekeeping lies with the Members here. Whether such business constitutes a matter of privilege or simply doing the work we are paid for and sworn to do, the voters of my constituency and of the country will not want to be stonewalled for another three years.



CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION FUNDING PROVIDED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. John E. Cole (York Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to announce today on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), the approval of $9 million to advance more than 50 co-operative education projects across Canada. This amount is added to the $26 million that has supported 193 projects since 1985.
Co-operative education is an academic plan that formally integrates a student's classroom studies with work experience in appropriate fields.
The principle of co-operative education was first adopted in Canada in 1957. Since then, co-operative education has grown gradually and spread to both universities and colleges in various regions of Canada.
With the introduction of the Canadian Jobs Strategy funding by Employment and Immigration in 1985, co-operative education has experienced accelerated growth. Today there are 38,000 students enrolled in co-op programs in 75 post-secondary institutions.
Co-operative education will play an important role in the future development and adaptability of our workforce. It is a well suited mechanism to assist young Canadians in preparing themselves for the workplace of tomorrow.
Co-op education serves as a major bridge between the classroom and the world of work. Our Government is committed to programs that ease the school-work transition.
Our support for co-operative education illustrates our Government's commitment to the human resources strategy and the training measures announced on April 11, when the Government brought forth its labour force development strategy.
April 20, 1989

Most important, we see our support of the co-op education movement as an investment in people that will pay valuable dividends in the future.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is cutting its ties with the Canadian people and moving silently toward its ultimate goal, the complete privatization of the postal system.
The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Late last week the Post Office in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, removed the Canadian flag flying over its two postal operations and replaced it with Canada Post's own ugly grey corporate flag. This has been repeated in Winnipeg and Halifax and is spreading across the country.
At the same time Canada Post has adopted a new logo. Look at it. It removes the name "Canada" from the very presentation at the post office. Canada Post, not "Mail/ Poste", must remain a Crown corporation. It must continue to be accountable to the people of Canada. It must continue to provide satisfactory services to all areas of the country, and it must continue to fly the Canadian flag at every location in every community in this wonderful country.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, April 16 to 22 is National Citizenship Week. If some people wonder exactly what we are celebrating in National Citizenship Week, it may be because their citizenship seems as natural to them as being born; they became Canadian citizens at birth without even realizing it.
I believe that our fellow citizens who were born in other countries are perhaps in a better position to appreciate what Canadian citizenship really means.
Canada has rightly been called the world's first international country. We owe this reputation to our respect for the various cultures in our society.
5. ft 31
National Citizenship Week no doubt gives us the best possible opportunity to reflect on how lucky we are to be citizens of Canada and to live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world, a land of democracy, peace and freedom.



THE MEDIA


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has found a powerful ally in its indifferent and insulting treatment of native students and the native community. It is the media.
The media, like the Government, pretends that a new policy to deny natives full access to education is inconsequential, when it should be front page news.
The native community's peaceful but powerful demonstration against this outrage has received little attention.
Post-secondary education is essential for native people to have access to employment, to develop future leaders, to promote independence and self-government. Increased investment in education will reduce welfare costs, imprisonment, and the tragically high rate of native youth suicide.
The Government and the media pretend not to hear the outcry from native people who are fighting for their future.
I call on the Government and the media to recognize the voice of the native community and support the obligation of Government to provide full access to education.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) commented on the situation in Lebanon. I think the Government should take advantage of the unanimous feeling in the House now that Canada is a member of the United Nations Security Council to take a determined stand and urge the United Nations to put pressure on all warring parties in the Middle East, in order to put an end to the situation in Lebanon and get rid of all

April 20, 1989
foreign troups in that country. I think that Canada now has a good opportunity to take this initiative and that Canadians of Lebanese descent realize that the Canadian Government is concerned about this problem in the Middle East and that it wants the Lebanese to live in safety and peace, in their own homes.



OPPOSITION TO EARLY RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, each of us in this House has recently read about dangerous criminals who, while on parole, commit violent crimes. These unfortunate and despicable incidents occur all too frequently. These crimes could be avoided if the Canadian parole system regulations were toughened. We must prevent the early release of dangerous offenders who have committed senseless and brutal crimes.
My constituents have expressed their disgust at the persistence of these unnecessary and tragic offences. We must all take responsibility and work toward a system in which dangerous offenders are not allowed to repeat their violence.
I call upon the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to review immediately and tighten up the regulations so that all Canadians are better protected from violent and dangerous offenders.



NARCOTICS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, there is a lethal epidemic sweeping the Province of Ontario, one that is fast becoming a national tragedy. The epidemic I am referring to is the use of cocaine and a cocaine derivative called crack.
A recent report from the Centre of Forensic Sciences stated that a total of 95 deaths in Ontario last year involved cocaine-nearly five times the 20 deaths recorded in 1985. These figures provide graphic evidence of the increase in human wastage due to drug abuse.
The figures tell another story as well. Many of the recent deaths have been attributed to pure or nearly pure cocaine hitting the drug market.
According to Metro Toronto Drug Squad intelligence, cocaine purity is up and prices are down. A gram of the drug now sells for between $100 and $150, half of what it sold for in 1985.
These figures tell me that we are losing the war against drugs, especially the battle against cocaine. The extent of the problem can best be illustrated by the fact that for the first time in the history of the Metro Toronto Police cocaine busts outnumber arrests for marijuana. So far this year, 824 seizures of cocaine have been made compared to 520 of marijuana.
With the phenomenal rise in cocaine use, can the drug wars be far behind? I urge the Government to step up its campaign against drugs before Toronto becomes Washington North.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, years ago when I was going to high school in Thunder Bay, I rode the bus with a number of young native people of my age from the Fort William Indian Reserve. None of those young people made it through to grade 13.
Last fall during the federal election campaign when I had the opportunity to speak to the first of what has become many rallies at the Indian Affairs office in Thunder Bay, I was very, very pleased to see in the crowd not only the children of those people with whom I went to school going to university and college but their parents going back to school as well. That was the result of the old E-12 guidelines that allowed full access by aboriginal peoples to post-secondary education.
I call on the Government to give these people the chance they want and deserve for their future. Suspend the current guidelines, give them a year to negotiate and develop a program that will meet everyone's needs, particularly those of the aboriginal peoples.
April 20, 1989



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across Canada are pleased to know that the Government is committed to protecting the environment.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) in this House, along with his provincial counterparts, has established a five-year fund to clean up hazardous waste sites in Canada. Some $250 million will be available to cover the cost of cleaning up sites, the owners of which are not known. In cases where owners can be found, they will be forced to pay the clean-up costs.
I am of course very pleased with this new development in the fight against dangerous material, whether it be on the ground or in the air. Acid rain has been one of my causes throughout my career in the House.
The diplomacy the Minister has demonstrated in getting the provincial Ministers to agree has given me hope that we will soon have more agreements that are honest attempts at solving these very difficult problems.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and part-time Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) an article that was in The Toronto Star a few days ago saying that firms are telling staff to shape up or lose jobs to free trade. The food conglomerate H. J. Heinz Company of Canada has said that it will find it necessary to move to the United States. In fact, a person from Nabisco Brands Limited, Ray Verdon, has said that he advised firms to cut costs, for example, by using potential U.S. sources as low-cost suppliers.
I stand today to call on the Deputy Prime Minister to do the right thing, to bring in programs to help farmers who are adversely affected by free trade.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will put my question to the Prime Minister. I have listened carefully, as have Hon. Members of the House, to all of the Minister's answers.
The Minister tells us that a cut of $800 million in direct benefits going to the unemployed is not really a cut.
She tells us that the training programs she has announced will not come into effect for four years, according to her paper, but somehow magically they will be in full effect next year.
She tells us that money spent on training people with jobs is actually training people without jobs.
Let me ask the Prime Minister about another one of the Minister's far-fetched statements. How can the Minister for International Trade, in his press release of April 11, tell the people of Newfoundland that they will receive $30 million less under the new program while the Minister for Employment and Immigration has said repeatedly in this House that the people of Newfoundland will receive $15 million more under the program?
Will the Prime Minister at the same time be good enough to tell us, since the Minister has been so precise-erroneously-about the people of Newfoundland, how much the people of British Columbia will receive next year? She gave us a precise figure for Newfoundland. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give us a precise figure for British Columbia.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the reform we announced last week is primarily aimed at getting Canadians to work. We want Canadians to have jobs. We are giving them the kind of training they need to respond to new needs. Since 1984, training has been the cornerstone of our employment strategy, and it works: 1.15 million jobs have been created since 1984!

April 20, 1989
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: That is not an answer, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND-AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES
John Napier Turner: Let me put another question to the Prime Minister because he has been listening to the Minister of Employment and Immigration just as I have. I am sure he has been listening carefully.
The Minister said that the overall amount in the Unemployment Insurance Fund remains the same. She also said in the House that women will now receive more money. She said that men will receive more money. She said that younger workers will receive more money. She said that older workers will receive more money. She said that visible minorities will receive more money, and urban centres will receive more money, and rural communities will receive more money. She said all of that in the House of Commons.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, if the amount of money remains the same, as his Minister insists, and all those people listed in the House receive more money, who is going to get less?
Would the Prime Minister ask his Minister to produce the document so we could have a balance sheet of who gets more and who gets less?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the people in the regions that I represent will get more: more programs and more training. The reform we announced last week is designed for the labour force and was introduced in response to the various committees that came to see us and deplored the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Program was too passive. We have made it an active program, and the Canadian worker will be the winner in this process. We must put a higher value on work and that is what we are doing.


REQUEST THAT FINANCIAL DATA BE TABLED
John Napier Turner: At the personal level, Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but in the absence of her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and especially because the Prime Minister refuses to answer my question, I will put a question to the Minister.
The policy followed by her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Imigration, seems to be the following: Every time there is a provincial election, she says that that particular province is going to receive more money. When there is no election, as in Quebec at the present time, the Minister does not know how much money the province is going to get. My question to the Minister is therefore this: If her colleague is able to give me erroneous figures for Newfoundland, would she give me some figures for Quebec? Who will end the suspense? Will she give us the documents today that will tell us who is going to get more and who is going to get less? Can she produce a document here in the House to clarify the situation?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Last week we announced our Government's policy. I would also like to say that elections will be held in Quebec, perhaps veiy shortly. The reform we announced is part of an ongoing consultation process with the provinces, something we did not see very often before 1984. When it is time to disclose the figures, we will announce them, as is customary, before the legislative committee.


TRANSPORT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Industry has developed in the Atlantic region over many years with the help of the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program. It is absolutely essential for the manufacturers and the producers in Atlantic Canada. In my Province of Prince Edward Island hundreds of jobs depend on this program.
Can the Minister assure the House that this program will not only be maintained but improved upon even after April 27?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I cannot give that assurance, in the same manner that I could not give any assurance this week to the colleague of the Hon. Member.
April 20, 1989

However, everything that deals with that issue will have to be answered within the process the Hon. Member has referred to, that is the Budget on April 27.


IMPORTANCE OF PROGRAM TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
How many more times will the axe fall on Atlantic Canada? Our potato producers, our food processors, our fish processors, and other Island exporters need to know what the Government has in store for them right now.
Can the Minister assure the House that Islanders, and Maritimers in general, will not suffer reductions to the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program in the future?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier and at various times in the past namely that I think the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Atlantic Canada, are very proud of the achievements by the Conservative government in the past four years, which cannot be compared to what was done before.
However, I have to say this: We will continue to act as a responsible government. With regard to the policies you were refering to, the Minister of Finance will answer your questions of April 27.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In March of this year the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a new program for post-secondary education for aboriginal Canadians.
The Minister reiterated in the House yesterday that this program will be put in place on September 1. It is in place already, but it will be carried forward, including the new term, starting in September of this year.
Oral Questions
Without exception aboriginal Canadians from one coast to the other have condemned this process, and have appealed directly for a withdrawal of the September 1 deadline, in order that on a bilateral basis a new comprehensive program could be agreed to.
Given his previous commitment to aboriginal Canadians, will the Prime Minister now intervene on their side and say no to the September 1 deadline imposed by his Minister?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on numerous occasions, I am prepared to enter into the bilateral process in order to review the guidelines that will come into effect on September 1.
I was also very pleased to learn that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has decided to review the policy. Obviously, I will be appearing before that committee.
I also welcome the opportunity of discussing with my House Leader the possibility of entering into a debate on an opposition day as early as tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the last point made by the Minister, and return to the Prime Minister or to the House Leader.
Earlier this day Your Honour ruled against an emergency debate, adhering to the rules, but indicating that there might be another moment to discuss what the Speaker himself has called an important matter.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, or the House Leader, in view of what the Minister has stated, will they agree that, when we reach Orders of the Day this afternoon, to debate this important matter this afternoon, which we can do in the House by common agreement?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend the Minister has indicated, the Government is prepared to allocate a day, preferably tomorrow, wherein a debate on this important matter can take place, with the motion properly framed. This will give our colleagues the time this evening and tomorrow morning to prepare for the debate. We would welcome such a debate.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we too would welcome that debate. I suggest that it would have been preferable

April 20, 1989
Oral Questions
to be able to use some government time, but that does not matter as long as the occasion arises for the debate to take place. The important thing is for the Government finally to attempt to defend an indefensible policy, and to do it in the House of Commons.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET STUDENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Native students have stated that they want to talk directly with the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree to talk with the students affected by this program?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister responsible is handling this issue with great openness and, I trust, generosity to our native people, as he should.
However, his requirements are minimal. He says that his door is wide open. Furthermore, he meets with native leaders on a regular basis. He met with some students and he says that his door is wide open to receive the delegations. On the other hand, he asks that they end their hunger strike. That does not seem too much to ask. And the reason for my optimism, once the strike is over, are the measures that the House has approved in the last four years.
This program that is so important for our future native leaders was increased from $53 million in 1984 to $130 million this year. The number of native students eligible for this program has increased from 8,000 in 1984 to 15,000 this year.
I think that this program was endorsed by all parties here in the House of Commons. It is an indication of our general position in favour of native young people. We want to do more.
And the Minister has shown not only great leadership but also generosity toward the native leaders in order to put an end to this tense situation as soon as possible and to do more in future.


THALIDOMIDE-TASK FORCE REPORT-COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will know that the report of the Thalidomide Task Force is both a comprehensive and a demonstrative document which outlines the extraordinary needs of some 120 courageous young men and women. The Minister will also know that these individuals face enormous difficulties in education, transportation, career related matters, and in a host of health related issues.
Would the Minister indicate to the House when he will be announcing a compensation package which has been sought for many years by these victims and by those individuals who have ably represented them over the years?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question on a very important matter.
I had the opportunity to meet with the members of the Thalidomide Victims Association. I do not think anyone who met with them would be anything but struck by the sincerity of their condition and also the seriousness of it as well.
The Government is currently considering the request that has been made. There have been a number of requests that have been made for extraordinary payments to people who have been damaged in a number of different ways through medications and through other procedures. We are considering those, and when we have an announcement to make we will be making it.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I remind him of a quote from a statement which was made by a former Minister in the Diefenbaker Government. On January 29, 1963, the Hon. J. Waldo Monteith said:
It is our job to ensure that thalidomide victims are cared for in the
best possible manner, that their needs are met to the fullest extent
we can devise and to ensure, as much as possible, that a similar
tragedy will never occur again.
April 20, 1989

Oral Questions
I ask the Minister, not on the grounds of legal precedent but on the grounds of a moral obligation on the part of the Government of Canada, will he come forward quickly and announce a compensation package, not in six months, not in nine months, but will he indicate a date of a possible announcement for a compensation package for these survivors?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this tragic circumstance occurred back in the early 1960s. The Thalidomide Task Force Report was received on February 14. We have been studying it very actively since then as we have been studying other requests for extraordinary payments in cases where people have been suffering.


An Hon. Member:: Look at it on its merits.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member shouts across the floor "look at it on its merits". That is precisely what we are intending to do.


John V. Nunziata: Don't be patronizing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We want to ensure that in any action taken all people with cases to make are treated fairly and equally.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for External Relations. It concerns the deteriorating situation in Lebanon which is producing a flood of very desperate refugees in record numbers.
This morning the Minister announced that a single immigration officer will be sent to Cyprus to facilitate applications to Canada. However, with all due respect, I suggest to the Minister and the Government that that does not come close to meeting the magnitude of the problem.
I ask the Minister, given that people cannot be expected to travel safely to Damascus, Syria, where we have a full consular operation, and given that one immigration official in Cyprus will not come close to meeting the flood of applications that can be expected, will the Minister, at least on a temporary basis, establish a full and proper immigration consular operation that will be capable of meeting the demand, instead of placing one person in an untenable situation?


Monique Vézina: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, an External Affairs official was sent to Cyprus. And very special steps have been taken so that no one is sent back from Lebanon until further notice. As my colleague said yesterday, the government put a stop on April 6 to the removal of people to Lebanon. Immigration services are provided and, of course, any organization, any individual can, under the special program, sponsor a Lebanese relative at his or her request. Special steps have therefore been taken. We are closely monitoring the situation and we can give people the assurance that we will take the humanitarian stance for which Canada is well knoun.


UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION ON REFUGEES-REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY MEETING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the special program on this side of the ocean where we try to sponsor people from here, but the problem is not in Canada. The problem is on the other side of the world where people cannot make their way to Damascus; and one person in Cyprus, with every respect, does not come close to the reality and the emergency of the situation.
I ask the Minister to reconsider her stand. I further ask the Minister, given that my colleagues earlier this week have asked for leadership by this Government at the United Nations, and given that the United Nations' High Commission on Refugees has only a skeleton staff of three people in Lebanon to deal with the flood of human misery, will the Minister give the House her undertaking that she will ask the UNHCR to convene an emergency meeting in order to try to reinforce this commitment in Lebanon, so that an international commitment can address this human tragedy, and so that other countries will be encouraged to try to land people who are desperate and needy?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the special steps I referred to earlier, mention must be made of our cooperation with the Red Cross and the substantial sums of money that were sent to help the victims of strife in Lebanon. Obviously, such situations are regrettable and the Canadian government will do everything it can.

April 20, 1989
Oral Questions


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We hear a lot of soothing talk about the Government's generous approach to Indian education, and its sensitivity to the needs of Indian people. Why is the Minister cutting and capping funding for community education programs for Indian health workers and Indian alcohol counsellors on Indian reserves across Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we have extensive programs to provide assistance in the whole area of health and in the whole area of dealing with problems related to alcoholism and other things. This is a program that we feel is important and we intend to continue it.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it seems that somebody might have told the Minister that he looks cute when he dances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRAINING OF COMMUNITY HEALTH REPRESENTATIVES
Raymond John Funk: I have some specific questions, Mr. Speaker. Why is the Minister not providing any funding at all for the training of the 538 community health representatives on Indian reserves? Why has he eliminated funding for 839 alcohol and drug abuse counsellors, and why is he abolishing completely the National Native Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse on June 15 without anything to take its place?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we have extensive programs designed to deal with the problems of alcoholism and drug abuse. It is a priority for us. Indeed, in the Speech from the Throne we indicated that in the whole area of drug abuse the Government would be enhancing its efforts.
We are committed to operating in this area. We have obligations particularly in the area of native health, and the Hon. Member should be supportive of those efforts.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward -Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan, who is also the Minister of Agriculture, said this week that he will pay the Saskatchewan beef producers $2.5 million in subsidy in addition to the red meat tripartite program payments. This is contrary to that federal-provincial agreement. It has angered beef producers in Ontario and Alberta, as well as the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. What is the Prime Minister prepared to do about the breaking of the rules of this agreement?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very important point. In fact, he is correct in his assertion.
We have had some discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, the Premier of Saskatchewan, in an attempt to resolve this particular issue. It seems to have occurred as a result of some misunderstanding with respect to the application of the bridging agreement.
I am confident that it can be resolved so that the general phasing down of provincial subsidies in conformity with the establishment of a level playing field right across the country will be achieved. Those discussions are going on.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the beef producers in the rest of Canada look forward to that action by the Minister. They will be disappointed if it does not happen.


ONTARIO-LATE RECEIPT OF DROUGHT ASSISTANCE FORMS
Lyle Vanclief: The deadline for the return of Canadian Crop Drought Assistance forms for Ontario was March 15. As many farmers in Ontario were still receiving the forms as
April 20, 1989

Oral Questions
recently as last week, what assurance will the Minister give to the producers in Ontario that their forms will be honoured? How does he propose to notify these farmers that that will happen? Some are not even sending them in since they received them some 30 days after the deadline, which is outlined very clearly on the form.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the deadline that we put on the forms were for applications that were sent out automatically without producers requesting them.
The Hon. Member should tell his constituents that we are going to honour every form that is sent in as long as the process is under way. We are going to be making every effort we can to continue with interim payments as long as it is practically possible and as long as it does not interrupt the process so that it delays the final applications.
This program is designed to be fair. We are going to do everything we can to accommodate farmers when they send in their requests, no matter when we get them, as long as that does not interfere with the over-all operation of the program and does not jeopardize everybody's ability to receive the money as quickly as we can get it to them.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Rogers Cable admits its investment in CNCP is the first step toward competing in Canada's long-distance telephone market. Given that most Canadians know that long-distance competition favours big business, not the little guy, will the Minister assure Canadians that his Government supports affordable phone service across the country? Will he reject a national policy of long-distance competition if it raises local rates and cuts a lifeline for a grandmother who cannot afford to pay?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago, the Government announced its policy on that issue which involves universality among other things. Now, if some groups want to get in touch with the CRTC, that Commission has the legal authority to answer the Hon. Member's questions.


AFFORDABLE TELEPHONE SERVICE
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. A Manitoba Government official said today that local rates there could jump by as much as 50 per cent under the Rogers plan. Given that this could happen in many parts of the country, which would be a disaster if it did, will the Minister assure Canadians that rather than blind faith in telephone competition his national priority is affordable telephone service for all Canadians?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that Canadian telecommunications policy is being set and shall continue to be set in the interest of Canadians.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Right Hon. Prime Minister having to do with the future of Innu protesters in Labrador. At that time the Prime Minister tried to fob off the question by pretending that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that it is not really something about which he ought to be concerned.
I presume that the Prime Minister will know that since I asked him that question 75 Innu natives who went to the Canadian Armed Forces Base to present a letter peacefully were rounded up by the military police who are employees of the Government of Canada, the federal Government, the Government which the Prime Minister leads.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to take his responsibility as the Prime Minister of the federal Government and to intervene in this matter to bring an end to the low-level flight testing, to declare the moratorium that people have been asking for, and to reach the negotiated settlement with the Innu that the court judgment of the other day recommends and that many people have been recommending to the Government for many years now?

April 20, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as was said yesterday, the Government is obviously reviewing the decision. As yet we have not heard from the Province of Newfoundland with respect to its wishes.
With respect to the base at Goose Bay, yesterday, indeed, about 75 Innu went to the base. They presented their letter to a member of the Armed Forces. We have received that letter. It has been distributed to all the commanders. They were escorted off the base, as we have to ensure that our property and our personnel are properly secured. No arrests were made and no charges were laid.


OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY-SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, of course what is in dispute here is whose property we are talking about. It is the Innu who have a counterclaim as to whose property we are talking about, something which ought to be dealt with before there is any more low-level flight testing, or before the Government pursues its plan to have a NATO base in that area.
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister particularly with respect to the low-level flight testing. I hope he will have the courage to get up to deal with this question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -instead of fobbing it off to one of his Ministers. Yesterday, he fobbed it off on to the provinces. Today, he will not even stand up to answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister would want to respond.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The question is coming, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House to what forum he was referring when he said that the matter of low-level flight testing will be dealt with in an entirely different forum? Should that not be a forum in which the interests, the concerns and participation of the Innu people are involved?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to draw to the attention of my hon. colleague-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I didn't ask you. I asked the Prime Minister.


Harvie Andre: That is why you should not have let him speak. You should not have given him a second chance.


Mary Collins: The Hon. Member had some time to ask his question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an issue which should be dealt with in all seriousness.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: By the Prime Minister.


Mary Collins: I am sure my hon. colleague would like to listen to a response to his question.
As he knows, of course, low-level flying has been taking place for over 25 years in the Goose Bay area. In 1986, my predecessor established in conjunction with the federal Minister of the Environment, a federal environmental review process. This is a process by which we can determine the facts, the facts of what the environmental and the social and economic implications of low-level flying may be in that area. That process is ongoing. The environmental impact statement is being prepared.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Stop until it is completed.


Mary Collins: Indeed, the Inuit have submitted-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Innu, not the Inuit.


Mary Collins: The Innu have submitted their impressions and their understanding of the environmental impact assessment. Hearings will proceed this fall. They will be full public hearings. That will be the forum, the very forum which my hon. colleague asked for, in which a full discussion can take place and in which rational decisions can be made to come up with a conclusion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Last year, Alberta and Saskatchewan passed bills repealing minority language rights in those provinces. We know that Saskatchewan signed a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Government to try and compensate a little for the harm done to its minority by that bill. Alberta Francophones have been trying for
April 20, 1989

some time to meet with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for promoting and protecting minorities. When will the Secretary of State meet with these people to discuss an agreement between Alberta and the Federal Government which would help them survive in their own province?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to accept the organization's development plan today. I will review it with my staff and officials from my Department. I will then be happy to meet with Mr. Ares to discuss the final development plan. Those who know me are aware that I am always available to meet with groups. Since my nomination, I have met with the Societe franco-manito-baine, the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Alliance Quebec and, on Saturday, I will meet with French-speaking residents of British Columbia.


MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS - REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank the Minister for that answer. You were going to jump over Alberta going to B.C. Now that you are going to stop over, I am happy to hear that.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. We have a serious question in Canada dealing with minority language rights in our provinces. We know that there is a crisis in many provinces at this time. I have asked, and the Liberals have asked, before for a conference of the Premiers of this country to discuss the distressing situation of some minority groups in Canada. I am wondering if the Prime Minister read the Official Languages Report. The Commissioner recommends a Royal Commission, or at least a federal-provincial conference, on that question, to settle once and for all the future of minority rights in this country. Will he accede to that request, not from us, but from the Official Languages Commissioner, and call a federal-provincial conference on that question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the comments of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Indeed, on April 7, the Commissioner wrote to the Government saying that, "The new Act for which the Government was responsible is eloquent testimony of your Government's commitment to greater linguistic harmony and equality".
Oral Questions
That commitment is of course the position of the Government of Canada, and I know it is the position shared by all Parties in the House of Commons.
There are challenges facing minority language groups across the country which vary from province to province. We have a large French-speaking minority in the Province of Ontario, an English-speaking minority in the Province of Quebec, and so on. I had occasion on April 14, 1988, in the Province of Saskatchewan and in the presence of Premier Devine, to make a comment dealing with precisely this issue. I think it would perhaps answer my hon. friend's question, and I ask for his indulgence to respond in the same way.
Saskatchewan is 97 per cent English speaking. Let us assume that the population were 97 per cent French speaking in Saskatchewan. How would you want them to be treated? What rights would then be fair for the English-speaking minority in Saskatchewan? I suppose that you would want the rights in regard to the courts, the legislature, in regard to schools, all the rights of Canadian citizens.
If you want to understand how you should deal with minorities, ask yourself what it would be like to be in the position of a linguistic minority and treat that minority with all of the generosity that you would want extended to yourself.
That is my position, and that is the position of the Government of Canada, and I believe it to be the position of all Members of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES EXPENDITURE ON BOOK
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His former Minister of Energy collected an Oscar. I guess he now wants to go for a Pulitzer.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is not a little bit embarrassed about $191,000 of taxpayers money being spent on a coffee table item at the same time as the Minister of Energy is sending out lay-off notices to 110 scientists who are working in renewable energy resource in this country.

April 20, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes a point of the publication of a book-a French copy and an English copy. I repeat to her that in the past Governments have published books as well in respect to government policy. For example, I remember receiving from the former Government a copy of a book on the Constitution. So what I am saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Get serious.


An Hon. Member:: You are making a fool of yourself. Sit down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: So what I say to the Hon. Member is that the book has been published. The Government of Canada has purchased a certain number of books for part of the delegate package for the World Energy Conference in Montreal in September of this year. Additionally, that book is available at various bookstores across the country.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to please tell his former Minister, who sees himself as the new Napoleon, Little or Great-excuse me, Mr. Speaker-
Some Members: The Sun King!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to end his delusions of grandeur, that he is not in Hollywood any more.
How dare he ask Canadians to consent to sacrifices from April 27 onward when his own Minister has his portrait enlarged at the Canadian taxpayers expense?
How can he justify such abuse on the part of the so-called Napoleon the Little or the Great?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really have nothing more to add from my first answer, other than to say that there are some people who are interested in the area of energy related to the publication. As I have said, we will make that book available to delegates to the World Energy Conference.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are laying people off.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying to the Hon. Member that it was not long ago here in this House that there was a strong push from the Opposition that we make more moneys available to Canadian publishers and to Canadian artists, and that has been done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXPORT TAX ON TREE BASKETS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This Government has made much of the benefits of the trade deal entered into between Canada and the United States. Both during the election last fall and in this Chamber since, the Government has claimed this agreement will produce great benefits for Canadians. However, since the January 1 implementation of the trade deal, we have witnessed job losses in Canada and increased costs to Canadian manufacturers.


An Hon. Member:: Speech, speech.


Joy Langan: One example is a B.C. firm which exports wire baskets used in the transport of large trees that is now required to pay an export tax of 5.1 per cent.
Will the Prime Minister explain how our provincial and Canadian manufacturers can be competitive under the trade deal they are now facing tariffs they did not face before?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism):: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that as a result of the Free Trade Agreement tariffs between Canada and the United States will be totally eliminated in 10 years. When they are gone we will also find that GATT tariffs will be coming down extensively as well.
I should tell the Hon. Member that we have had an enormous number of expansions and investment in the last three months alone, including Campbell Soup Company, MTC Electronics in Richmond, B.C., Cargill in High River, Alberta, Rose Works in Belleville, and the list goes on.
Right across the country there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of expansions as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.


April 20, 1989


SITUATION OF EXPORTING COMPANIES
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, will the Government assure Canadians that those companies that did not face tariffs before the Free Trade Agreement was in place will receive some attention so that they will not face tariffs today that will make them uncompetitive?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to changes that came through the harmonized tariff reforms. In those reforms the Canadian tariff system was brought in line with the rest of the world. That was long overdue. We also set up a consultation process so that if there was any tariff increase as a result of the harmonized process, a consultative mechanism with the industry would take place in order to determine whether that could be ameliorated in any way.
*	* siC


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I wonder if the Government House Leader would inform Members of the House what the Government's menu is for the next week? Possibly he can give us an indication as to the legislation until next Wednesday at least.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will continue debate on Bill C-3, the Bill to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
Tomorrow will be an opposition day. We would welcome an opposition day debate on the subject of post-secondary student assistance for native people.
On Monday we will continue debate on Bill C-3 to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. That will continue through Tuesday, and once we have finished second reading debate on Bill C-3 we would move to Bill C-8, an Act respecting worker adjustment, and Bill C-9, the Bill respecting bank charges. I think that would take us through until Wednesday afternoon.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I object strongly to the Government coming into the House and saying there is going to be an opposition day and it would like to participate in a certain debate. The Opposition will decide what the subject will be on that day. I hope the Government will keep its hands out of this business of
Business of the House
telling the Opposition what to do. We can handle that, thank you very much. You stick to handling your business; we will handle ours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Minister, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order under the business question. We agree in principle with the comments made by our colleague from the Liberal Party, that it is not the Government's role to decide what will be the content of an opposition day motion.
Having said that, however, and my Leader having raised with you earlier today the urgent necessity for a debate on this matter, we would be quite prepared as a Party voluntarily to offer one of our votable opposition days-of which we only have two-for the purpose of allowing a debate on post-secondary education. We believe it is crucial that we have such a debate so that we can put all the points on the table and perhaps assist in moving the Government toward the appropriate decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Minister, I think these discussions should take place behind the curtain-


John Napier Turner: Oh, no. That's not going to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -if there are any further negotiations to carry on as far as the subject of what is said in the House is concerned. But I will recognize the Hon. Minister.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the problem.


John Napier Turner: All right-you are not going to try this. You started it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was obviously not trying to suggest that the Government has any ability to draft opposition day motions.


John Napier Turner: Why did you mention it, then?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was simply indicating the readiness on our part to debate this very important subject, which was the subject of an opposition request for an emergency debate. Obviously one of the Opposition Parties felt it was important enough to call for an emergency debate. That was turned down by the Chair. We understand that. We were simply offering our readiness to debate that very important subject.

April 20, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
Obviously, tomorrow is an opposition day. The Opposition can choose whatever subject it wishes for debate. We are more than ready to meet them on any subject.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you thoroughly that negotiations on House business should be done in another place. But the Minister is the one who started the whole ball rolling by doing something which I find not veiy tasteful on his part, starting by refusing to go along with an emergency debate-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I did not refuse. That is the Speaker's decision and you know it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can call-let me finish. The Government-you let him talk-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will let you finish. Order, please. The Hon. Member.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Liberals in this House have been raising the issue of post-secondary education for native people for the last 15 days.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The NDP raised it. You did not raise it today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have raised it consistently. We raised it today. We are indeed ready to debate that at any time but it is the Government who can order people around here as to what the Orders of the Day will be and has the ability to call a day on its time to discuss a very important piece of business or present corrective legislation. If the Opposition has to come in and criticize the Government for its lack of action on this subject, which we will tomorrow-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You are getting around to it, now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have been asking the Government to suspend the moratorium. The Government has not acted on that. We will call it to task tomorrow.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We made up your mind, eh?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the charade that the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) tried to parade in the House, in trying to use an opposition day which is usually at the discretion of the Opposition, trying to toss off the fact that we should have had an emergency debate-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You are criticizing a decision of the Chair.


John Napier Turner: I am not criticizing the Speaker but the Minister of Justice, as House Leader, who could have agreed to it. We brought this issue up for the last three weeks. This kind of cheap grandstanding will cost the Government some co-operation in this House in the next few weeks, I will tell you that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I suggest that we proceed with Orders of the Day.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious point of order that I believe reflects on the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek). In this morning's The Globe and Mail his Parliamentary Secretary is quoted as saying that Canadian firms do pay bribes and make kick-backs to make their businesses operate. The article states:
"It is normal", said Mr. Della Noce-Mr. Della Noce said there is no problem because whatever bribe is claimed as a deduction the Canadian firm or individual must indicate who received it.
It seems to me that this reflects upon the Canadian business community. I would like to know whether this is a reflection of the policy of the Government of Canada. It is a serious issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to ask that question tomorrow during Question Period.


Mr. Jelinek:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not find it a point of order. It is a point of debate. However, I will allow the Hon. Minister to answer, if he would like to. The Hon. Minister of National Revenue.


Otto John Jelinek: It is incumbent upon me to answer since this accusation is made. If the Hon. Member had continued quoting from the same Globe and Mail article, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Della Noce) further states: "I don't know where, or when, or how often".
:



April 20, 1989

If the Hon. Member is asking for government policy, the government policy stands as it was stated yesterday in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who categorically stated, as published in Hansard on April 19, 1989: "That is certainly not the way business is done in this country".
That is the policy of the Government of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. Members will have noticed what happens when points of order are allowed which should have been part of Question Period and raised earlier today.
I would hope that that is resolved and we can now move to Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p.724).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The debate is on the amendment of Mr. Langdon.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as part of today's debate on the Bill to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, I welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the issue of regional economic development and the role the new Department will play in this area.
In 1984, the federal Government realized that despite the very substantial efforts and monies expended on regional development so far, serious regional economic disparities continued to exist throughout the country.
In the fall of 1986, a new, decentralized approach to regional development was announced in the Throne Speech. This approach consists in correcting the imbalances between regions, stressing the most disadvantaged
Industrie, Science and Technology
areas and using the federal Government's scarce resources more effectively. More specifically, and this was a major change, Mr. Speaker, which is reflected in this Bill, programs will be adapted to local circumstances and needs; the regions concerned will be more involved in decision-making; and all local resources will be explored when developing strategies.
On the basis of these principles, new, decentralized initiatives for regional development have been designed, according to the needs of the various regions.
Unlike the formula used previously, the Government's new approach is based on delegation of authority to the regions for the development, co-ordination, and funding of their programs. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has truly established a partnership with the regions. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is responsible for regional development in the Atlantic Provinces, the Department of Western Economic Diversification covers the four Western provinces, and Industry, Science and Technology Canada is responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, each of these three agencies has received a clear mandate for the development of the region for which it is responsible, for co-ordinating its activities and designing and financing programs adapted to regional needs.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill will complete the process of reorganization that is necessary to implement the objectives of regional development in Canada. Industry, Science and Technology Canada is now establishing an organizational structure, separate from the rest of the Department, that will be responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec.
In Ontario regional development activities are adapted to the circumstances in the various regions in that province.
Activities include managing current programs for business development, such as FEDNOR, an initiative to promote the development of Northern Ontario; administering the economic and regional development agreement between Ontario and the federal Government; preparing regional development policies and methods for Ontario's subregions; establishing and implementing new programs adapted to the needs of the subregions; and finally, defending the interests of Ontario subregions when national policies and programs are being designed; co-ordinating all federal regional development activities in that province; and monitoring and analysing the development of the economies of the provinces in the subregions.

April 20, 1989
Industrie, Science and Technology
Among all Canadian provinces, Ontario of course has been enjoying the most prosperous economy in recent years, but this has not always been the case. In 1980-81, for example, Ontario lost 31,000 residents to immigration. In 1986 it recorded a positive immigration of 40,000 people. Regional development assistance must be tailored to that reality, and the need for federal help in terms of regional economic development is much less significant. Still, economically speaking Ontario can be divided into three major regions: the industrial core centred around Toronto and the metropolitan area whose growth these past few years has been the fastest among industrialized nations and whose unemployment rate is certainly half that of other Canadian major urban areas; the centre of Ontario, a much more heterogeneous aggregate of rural and urban regions; and, finally, Northern Ontario whose economy is resource-based, where unemployment has been severe for years, and where personal income is relatively much lower than in other communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is why FEDNOR has been set up to meet the needs of Northern Ontario. It enables the region to take part in the preparation and administration of programs and to be party to the decision-making process.
FEDNOR was given a five-year mandate and a budget of $55 million. It provides financing solely for private sector profit-making undertakings, particularly small-and medium-sized businesses. The amount of financial assistance is geared to projected economic fallouts, viability, risks, credibility, and needs.
FEDNOR's mission is to promote the diversification of the local economy, the on-site processing of natural resources, the development and acquisition of new technologies, as well as the higher competitiveness and productivity of businesses.
FEDNOR has a three-pronged program. The Basic Industrial Program is designed to help Northern Ontario's new and long-established concerns involved in manufacturing, processing or aquafarming or offering repair or other services. It supports projects aimed at establishing, expanding or upgrading various facilities, cariying out feasibility studies, as well as corporate innovation and marketing activities.
The Small Rural Business Assistance Program is for new or existing businesses in the rural regions of Northern Ontario. It is open to people dealing in manufacturing and processing, forestry and aquafarming, as well as to such services as retail sales, wholesales, warehousing, repairs and the like. Applications under this program are also accepted for projects related to the establishement, expansion or upgrading of facilities.
And finally the Loan Insurance Program which provides new or existing companies with loan insurance covering up to 85 per cent of loans made by recognized lending institutions for establishing, expanding or upgrading facilities.
Thanks to these programs, companies in Northern Ontario, especially the small and medium-size businesses, are getting the type of financial assistance they need to stimulate local economic activities which will benefit the people in the area.
Based on local participation and under the direction of an advisory committee made up of 12 local representatives, FEDNOR demonstrates the value of the new decentralized approach of the federal Government in the area of regional development, as well as our goal of partnership with the regions.
The Government and ISTC have also taken an entirely new approach to regional development in Quebec.
To be fair and efficient, the new federal programs take into account the fact that Quebec is made up economically of two broad groups of regions whose types and levels of development differ considerably.
In spite of a relatively rapid growth over the past few years, economic disparities between most Quebec regions and Canada as a whole, but especially Ontario, persist, and in some cases are getting worse. That is why the approach to regional development covers the whole province of Quebec.
FIRST of all, there is the industrial sector of Quebec which is based in the Greater Montreal area, and covers most of the Southwestern part of the province. This economic region is very well integrated in the North American economy, but is lagging far behind its competitors in the Southwestern area of Ontario and the Northeastern part of the United States. Moreover, the proportion of jobs provided by traditional industries is much higher than in the other areas I have just mentioned.
April 20, 1989

The second part of the program is aimed at the outlying areas which extend from the East to the North West and whose economy, based on resources, is similar to that of the Atlantic provinces. With the exception of Eastern Quebec, these areas have received no special attention under the previous regional development program.
The comparison with other parts of Canada clearly shows the need for special regional development action in Quebec, both in the natural resources regions and the central regions.
On June 9, 1988, the federal Government and Quebec signed a five year agreement whereby they will invest $440 million and $380 million respectively to promote the economic development of the Quebec regions. Moreover, the federal Government has implemented a $40 million program to help the forest industry in Eastern Quebec. The federal Government and the province have earmarked each $75 million to refinance the auxiliary agreements over the next year. Also, they have just added to these agreements a special program for Montreal East.
The new agreement for the Quebec region development has six major objectives:
- mobilize the local contractors; -encourage the development and processing of natural resources; -promote technological development; -increase the local businesses' competitiveness; -encourage economic diversification; -make it possible for these regions to integrate in the Canadian and North American markets and fully benefit from the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
There have been consultations-that is new, Mr. Speaker-to make sure that the people in these areas fully participate in the planning process, and the final text of the agreement takes into account the needs and priorities mentioned by the business people and the authorities in various parts of the province. In each of the regions with a resource base economy, an advisory committee made up of business people and area leaders will ensure the participation of the region in the decision-making process.
The agreement is based on the above principles of decentralization, consultation, and focusing on the areas that are the most in need.
Industrie, Science and Technology
One of the agreement's major goals is to accelerate economic growth in resource-based areas through five components-technological research and development, business enterprise development, resource development, human resources development, and infrastructure strengthening.
First, technological research and development. Since national policies and programs aimed at promoting innovation, technological transfer and research and development cannot always be adjusted to the conditions and needs of small businesses in resource based areas, a program to support research and development has been negotiated. Administered by the various Canadian departments and agencies concerned, will complement any national program in the areas involved without endangering national goals.
The agreement calls for the completion of joint industrial research activities and also joint or supplementary programs for mining and forestry. Further, a federal program for food testing has been announced, and another one involving fisheries and agriculture will be put in place.
Second, business enterprise development. The growth of enterpreneurship and small businesses is the best guarantee for diversification and economic expansion in resource based areas. Programs under that component will supply support similar to that offered in the Atlantic area.
A federal business development program has been established under that element of the agreement. Further, the province will initiate a business diversification and expansion program.
Third, resource development. Resources are the mainstay of regional economies. The activities of departments who deal with national resources often are not enough to solve certain development problems in a given area or to enable it to give its full measure. Programs under that component will be administered by the departments concerned and will endeavour to correct the situation.
Since my time is fast running out, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize this Government's efforts toward the central areas. The special needs of Quebec's central region also were considered. A federal productivity growth program has been set up. A joint innovation program with the provincial Government is under consideration and the new agreement provides that the province will establish an industrial ajustment program.

April 20, 1989
Industrie, Science and Technology
In addition, special programs for the Montreal area and disadvantaged regions within central Quebec are provided for. We must also recall, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government's special initiative for the sub-region of eastern Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, with these programs, Quebec will finally be able to benefit from the type of regional development assistance that only an effective federal approach, in consultation with the community, can provide.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about the Department's regional development activities. If you believe the Opposition Members, the federal Government has reduced its regional development expenditures in Ontario and Quebec with this new approach. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, regional development expenditures in Ontario and Quebec have increased considerably since the present Government took office. In the five-year period that preceded our taking power, these expenditures averaged $189 million a year for Quebec and $68 million for Ontario. Over the last five years, from 1984-85 to 1988-89, they rose to $246 million a year for Quebec and $108 million for Ontario.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Government spent $1,231 million for Quebec and $539 million for Ontario over the last five years, compared to $944 million and $338 million respectively for the previous period.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology gives great importance to regional development in Quebec and Ontario. Work in this area is managed by a separate section of the Department, with qualified personnel in each province and the participation of local councils and communities and even more resources than were allocated to regional development in the past.
Mr. Speaker, if I have a second, I would like to add that the Free Trade Agreement puts the Government under no new constraints as regards business. We have the same rules and obligations as we had and have under GATT.
As well, we have added the ability to solve conflicts much more easily, to reach an understanding under the Agreement before going to court, but also to appeal to the bilateral commission if U.S. legislation threatens to change the rules of the game. That seems to me to be an important gain, both for the whole Canadian economy and for the regional economy.
I would like to add that the regional development responsibility of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, comparable to that of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Diversification Department, involves the fundamental role of defending regional interests and, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this new organization based on partnership with the regions will help us rely more on regional dynamism and ensure the prosperity of Canada's regions.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter the debate on Bill C-3, realizing the necessity of launching Canada in new directions. We must understand the implications of the changing global economy and Canada's place in it if the Government is going to play a role in ensuring Canada's continued prosperity.

This Bill goes far beyond the establishment of a department. It gives the government the means to establish the programs and policies which are essential to the well being of Canada.

Within the mandate of this Department are those policies which will determine whether Canada's future is full of hope or despair.

It is essential that Canada recognize the importance of science, engineering and technology if we are to be competitive in foreign markets.

The reality facing Canada today is that we cannot continue merely to rely on the exploitation of our natural resources if we are to maintain our standard of living. In a world in which sustainable development has become a global imperative, in which the continued burning of fossil fuels endangers our health and well-being, we must change our way of thinking, our understanding of economic development in the context of impending environmental crisis.
We have grown up as Canadians believing that our natural resources are unlimited, that our wealth and standard of living is assured. This is simply not true. Our natural resources are limited in supply, and the world demand for them is changing as more and more people consider a clean and healthy environment to be the most important natural resource of all. The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we prepared to invest in
April 20, 1989

realizing the potential of Canada's most important resource, its people?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Manley: The natural wealth we have enjoyed has inhibited an appreciation of the necessity of investing in people, in education and skills, in innovative technologies. All we need to do is to look around us to understand the importance of science, of engineering, and of advanced education, whether it be the common use now of a personal computer, the production of information technologies, or the fusing of two atoms to create energy.
Unfortunately, Canada is being dragged reluctantly into the 21st century. Whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a world-wide race for technological leadership, a race that is being intensified by a number of factors including, for example, international trading competitiveness characterized by the rapid and, in historic terms, relatively easy flow of goods and services between nations, the explosion of information technologies.
Wealth is no longer simply a matter of control of durable goods. Just as brains over brawn has characterized human evolution, so will the innovative use of knowledge prevail over the mining of wealth and the production of goods over the next century. The activities of trans-national corporations, multi-national trading companies and international financial institutions, these corporate entities with the ability to move capital rapidly between nations, limit significantly the ability of nation states to control matters within their own jurisdictions, and involve national governments in major technological enterprises. The United States, through defence procurement, especially in the strategic defence initiative, has created the greatest industrial boondoggle in the history of the world.
In Canada, we have the recent example of the proposed acquisition of Connaught Laboratories by Institut Merieux, a corporation controlled by the Government of France. These factors alone emphasize just how important this Bill really is. Unfortunately, Canada is not well positioned at the present time in the new technologies race.
Industrie, Science and Technology
As Geraldine Kenney-Wallace and Fraser Mustard recently wrote:
Canada's status among developed nations has been largely won by trading grains, fish, metals, lumber, paper, oil, gas and electricity. The domestic manufacturing base, long protected by tariffs that encourage the building of branch plants, grew strong after 1945.
In contrast with other small countries, such as Switzerland, Holland and Sweden, however, Canada has not developed a similar number per capita of world-scale home-based multinational corporations.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), both as candidate and as Leader of the Government, has had a lot to say about science and technology, giving the nation's science community much cause for hope. As candidate for the leadership of his Party, he wrote:
The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league, or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit. Research and development and the resulting innovations, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.
The Prime Minister also set an impressive target for levels of performance for research and development at 2.5 per cent of the gross domestic product of Canada, a target he set in 1984. His commentary was accurate and the goal of increasing our level of spending on research and development was achievable. Unfortunately, we also have the Government's record. In November, 1984, $46 million was removed from Environment Canada's budget.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


John Paul Manley: Since that time, over $70 million was lost, when you take into account the effects of inflation. Because of this, over 336 jobs, mainly in scientific and technological fields, have been eliminated.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


John Paul Manley: Also in 1984, the Conservative Government announced the elimination of the energy division of the National Research Council. And there are other examples. But still the Government rhetoric was compelling. For example, the Government asked the university research granting councils to submit their five-year plans for their financing needs. In response, the research councils had their base budgets frozen, and inflation eroded them for three more years until a recent announcement of some increase in the base budgets.

April 20, 1989
Industrie, Science and Technology
Everyone who has been following the course of events has warned the Government about the consequences of undermining the research and development effort in Canada. We have had more than our fair share of forums and advisory councils. By way of advisory bodies the Government has assembled eminent Canadians through the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney). Unfortunately, its proceedings are secret. There has been the Advisory Council on Adjustment, the de Grandpre Commission. We have had for many years the Science Council of Canada. There are many advisory services in the Public Service of Canada. In Ontario, we have recently had the excellent work of the Premier's Council.
In terms of forums the Government has spent a great deal of money and taken people's time on at least two occasions to host the National Forum on Science and Technology and the National Forum on Post-secondary Education. If only some of the recommendations of these organizations and forums were acted upon I am convinced that we would not today be looking at the dismal statistics that I am compelled to cite.
Federal government expenditures on research and development as a percentage of total R and D spending have fallen since 1984 from 37 per cent to 30 per cent in 1988. According to the de Grandpre Commission, Canada has the lowest gross research and development expenditures as a percentage of GDP as compared to eight comparable countries. Industry funded R and D in Canada as a percentage of GDP is the lowest. Government funded research and development in Canada as a percentage of GDP is the second lowest. In terms of government performed R and D as a percentage of GDP, Canada is in the middle. Canada's higher education research and development as a percentage of GDP is the lowest. In terms of domestic patents granted per 100,000 inhabitants, Canada ranks second lowest. In terms of international patents granted, Canada is the lowest. With respect to advanced degrees awarded, Canada is in the middle. Canada has the lowest number of technology intensive industries with positive trade balances. Only 2 per cent of Canadian companies invest in R and D and two-thirds of this R and D is carried out by less than 7 per cent of this group.
The facts drown out the Prime Minister's protestations as to the importance of science and technology. Rhetorically, he has said the right things, but his rhetoric has not been translated into action. All the Government has to offer as a strategy for developing the Canadian economy is megaprojects and market forces. When it comes to building a science culture and an industrial base which is at once innovative and able to interact with the results of fundamental research, this is simply not adequate.
There are also many things for Canadians to be encouraged about. We have in place in Canada an excellent educational system with a population that has historically shown a willingness to support a high priority on education. We have a small but excellent governmental science community. The National Research Council enjoys a proud history of achievement. It is now called upon to evolve, but it must not be abandoned.
We have a vibrant, exciting and eager group of small and medium-sized high tech companies in Canada which have an international outlook, experience in world trade and excellent prospects if they are given the proper support. We have a peaceful, well-educated population by world standards. Given the proper tools and encouragement we can work smarter than anyone else.
With these strengths on our side, I ask myself where this Government is taking us, driven as it is by a preoccupation with deficits. Our existing significant investment in universities is being allowed to deteriorate as these institutions are under-funded. As a percentage of GDP, the funding of research in universities by the granting councils is less today than it was in 1970.

Under the conservative government, funding for basic research has been cut. A short-sighted government is only interested in applied research.

NRC is in a state of disrepair, lacking a president, smarting from budget cuts, stripped of the space program, waiting for the next shoe to drop. Our fledgeling industrial high technology sector is being cherry-picked by smart foreign investors while the Government of Canada stands idly by. Investment Canada has no teeth and no will to act. The Government has no vision. The established fact that foreign-owned companies tend not to do research in Canada is not even on the Government's agenda.
April 20, 1989



And small-and medium-sized businesses involved in research are harassed by accountants from Revenue Canada, a department which does not understand research.

As Denzil Doyle has pointed out, our annual trade surplus in resource-related products has only grown from about $10 billion to about $16 billion since 1976, while our annual trade deficit in medicine and high-technology products has grown from about $8 billion to about $18 billion. We had a trade deficit in computers alone of close to $5 billion last year. That means as many as 200,000 lost jobs to bright and technologically aware young Canadians.
In its recent report "R and D Outlook 1989" the Conference Board of Canada states that the general outlook for R and D spending is less positive now than it was a year ago. In considering this Bill, the question to be addressed by the House is whether the creation of this new department will assist Canada in moving forward in industrial policies and in the development of strategies for science, engineering and technology that will enable this country to create its own advantages in the global economy. I sincerely hope that the answer to that question will be in the affirmative. I hope that the move of science into a fully fledged departmental responsibility signals a greatly increased priority for it in the Government's agenda. However, the signs are that the contrary is true.
The Minister of this new Department is not a member of the Cabinet's Planning and Priorities Committee. Rather, he is one of those whose job it is to find cuts. The Government denied research, science and technology a standing committee of the House, preferring instead to structure a committee whose mandate is so broad that the concerns of the science community can only hope to be heard and addressed in a most peripheral way. There is the fear that to tie science to regional development is to link the two so that already scarce resources allocated to science are sought to be stretched even further to achieve regional development objectives.
The over-all objective of a science policy has got to be the promotion of Canada's ability to participate competitively in an international economy, increasingly driven by technological innovation. More particularly, I believe
Industrie, Science and Technology
that the objective should be to enhance the climate for technological innovation in Canada. Government should seek to stimulate and to reward innovation and should be willing to share its cost.
I believe there should be an objective of training and retraining a workforce of technologically literate workers. We require a new generation of blue and pink collar workers whose special skills will lie in the areas of working with and applying new technologies to existing jobs and in occupations that we have not even thought of yet. High tech requires trained and skilled technicians and precision machine shops. To a great extent we lack these important skills in many regions of Canada. We must have a strategy to increase in absolute and relative terms our ongoing investment in research and technological innovation. We must use our relatively small size to our advantage by encouraging co-operation between the key players. I believe the Centres of Excellence Program will contribute to this. However, that program is under-funded by the Government and has created and will continue to create tensions and rivalries in the scientific community that did not exist before.
We must improve existing incentives for the performance of industrial research. We must remove the obstacles to fair tax treatment of industrial consortia, wrestle to the ground the intractable problems of the definition of scientific research and experimental development in the Income Tax Act. We must use government procurement strategically to help create a viable advanced technology sector. We must apply strategies to accelerate commercialization of domestic and foreign technologies. Research, including applied research and international marketing, is expensive and receives direct or indirect government support in other countries. Our advanced technology must receive comparable support if it is going to gain a foothold in the global market. We should not use scarce resources to re-invent the wheel. Rather our fundamental research should be world-scale and push back the frontiers of discovery.
Fundamental research has a key role in the development of a scientific community and in setting a standard for a science culture to develop in this country. We do need to innovate, to tinker, but in our rush to be relevant, let us not abandon the pursuit of excellence in science.

April 20, 1989
Industrie, Science and Technology
Science and technology are not only crucial to our economic well-being, but could also be key to solving some of our important environmental problems. To bring the world into ecological balance will require a multiplicity of new and improved technologies. The countries that are quick to meet their own needs are also the ones whose industries are likely to grow and supply markets around the world.
In addition to a science culture in Canada, we must also beget a generation of entrepreneurs. We must recognize that entrepreneurship is a culture process and has a social value. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers. They are men and women who take a chance, and in so doing provide a pay cheque for others. They should be recognized as economic heroes.
In recent years, practically all new jobs in this country have been created in the small business sector. Working in a small business, self-employment, entrepreneurship, owning and building a company of your own, must become credible options to young people. Entrepreneurs are not bom. They are developed.

We do not intend to oppose this Bill just for the sake of opposing it, but we do intend to closely monitor all its results, Mr. Speaker.

We in the Liberal Party will support the Government if it endeavours to build the scientific base this country so desperately needs. But we will not stand idly by and be silent if the Government in its mandate continues to package its rhetoric and endeavours to sell it to us as policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Boyer).


Mr. Boyer:: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ottawa South has given a thoughtful speech and clearly has done a lot of research and has even developed some of his points quite extensively. I think there were parts that included rhetoric as well, just as it is something for which he was criticizing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government.
But rhetoric aside, I noted and listened carefully to his emphasis on the point that we must do more in Canada to train workers, whether blue or white collar workers, to put a greater emphasis on training of the workforce. I think that is something that many of us recognize as competition increases globally. Canadians have to match the skills not only of other Canadians, but workers in other countries. Given that the Hon. Member for Ottawa South has stated that point so clearly and forcefully, I just wanted to ask if he would confirm his support for the initiative announced in this House a week ago Tuesday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to transfer more funds and have greater emphasis on worker training under the unemployment insurance plan.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity it affords me to restate some of the concerns I have about the ability of Canada to provide for its scientific and technological business community the kinds of human resources that are going to be required if we are to compete in the world.
I had occasion to travel to British Columbia recently where I was able to meet with many of the advanced technology companies that are in Vancouver and Victoria. I repeatedly heard the concern expressed that the infrastructure does not exist in British Columbia to support the development of many of the companies that are there that have good products and good ideas. One critical shortage lies in the area of precision engineering machine shops. These are required if products are going to be refined and honed so that they can be tested and marketed abroad. I think that as a country we need to take a very serious look at many of educational objectives.
Many of us in this House are products of a culture that promoted the white collar above the blue. My friend who asked the question and myself are both products of legal training, and maybe that is in part a result of that. But now the time has come to stress to our young people the important jobs, the jobs of the future, are jobs that are skilled and that require scientific and technological understanding. I think that objective in our educational system is one that the federal Government needs to play a role in achieving, partly through programs that do exist but also through the support of community colleges which have been reduced in recent years. Those colleges are prime places in which to develop the kind of skilled workers that we need.
April 20, 1989

I regret the suggestion that it somehow would benefit our science community if funds were diverted from people who are unemployed in order to train people for other jobs, some of whom are already employed. I think that the need for training and skills development is clear. But where does the money come from? What I suggest to the Government is that investment in people, in science, in education should not be regarded as expenditures, but rather as investments. It will cost us much more in the long run if we do not make them than it costs in the short term to spend that money. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for a supplementary, then I will recognize the Member for Welland-St. Catharines- Thorold (Mr. Parent).


Patrick Boyer: Just to complete the point, I really did hope the Member would focus with some precision on the point, because it is not theoretical or academic at this stage. We have before the House the proposals of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We are looking at transferring funds while maintaining the integrity of the unemployment program and improving it, looking at putting additional funds from that fund toward the training and retraining of Canadian workers, something that the Hon. Member for Ottawa South has been advocating for these last 20 minutes or so on the floor of the House.
He dismisses that initiative with the suggestion, vague as it was, that funds could somehow come from somewhere else without telling us where. I really hope that if he is speaking for the Liberal Party on this, he could serve us all on the floor of the House by bringing some specific and clear comment on that point. The decision does have to be made and it is worthy of the best thinking of all Members in the House.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I felt that the answer that I gave was precise enough. It is clear that it is not acceptable on this side of the House to reduce the amounts of money that are available for benefits under the unemployment insurance program and to move them elsewhere. Those benefits are required by the unemployed in Canada. To reduce those amounts that are available as benefits by increasing the qualifying period and reducing the number of weeks for which benefits can be received, is to attempt to take money from people who need it the most. That is not acceptable. It is up to
Industrie, Science and Technology
the Government to decide where the money should come from. This is not a cafeteria where we can choose one plate and put another one back. My point is clear. Training schools development is crucial to Canada. Where that money comes from is the Government's choice.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to the supplementary question asked of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley). It would seem to me that the national revenues would be a good place to get the money. I have been here for a few years, but it is new to me to hear an Hon. Member say that we should be making money on our Unemployment Insurance Program. Surely unemployment insurance is just that. It was set up so that we could take care of people who are not as fortunate as others because they are in between jobs.
My question deals with the youth component. He referred to community colleges. He said that many of our schools do not fulfil, as adequately as many of us would like, the stated objective of preparing people to take their place in society. Does my hon. friend think there should be more money taken from national revenues and placed in the hands of the community colleges so we could indeed fulfil the mandate to have people who are trained and educated take their place in a high-tech society?


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question which deals with my previous comment that indeed it is in the community colleges, as well as other technical environments, that we are going to be able to give to our youth the kind of skills and abilities that are needed as part of our over-all endeavour to convert products from the laboratory table to products that we will sell in the world market-place. If that is going to happen there must be qualified people.
The statistics I read in my remarks indicate many ways that our allocation in some of these areas is inadequate. We are not producing enough people with those kinds of skills. I have heard repeatedly in my travels and discussions with advanced technology companies that they cannot find, in many cases, people with the required skills. I think that funding to community colleges is key to that. I think it is an inexpensive way to deliver the kinds of education that is required for the next generation.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest on debate and then the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


PROCEEDINGS ON AJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axworthy)-Aboriginal Peoples-Suspension of hunger strike-Minister's undertaking / Request for commitment on funding / Negotiations with elected native leaders; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)-Air Safety-Request for replacement of Minister / Request for public inquiry; the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan (Mr. Stupich)-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-British Columbia Fishery-Processing of fish in Canada / Landings of salmon and herring.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (P-724).
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on this historic legislation to create the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
The mandate and objectives of the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology are to strengthen the national economy, to increase international competitiveness of Canadian industry, to encourage excellence in the development and use of science and technology, and to promote economic growth and development in slow areas, areas such as Ontario and Quebec as well in outlying areas far from the central region of Ottawa.
I disagree with the amendment that was put on the floor of the House. This Government has recognized that those sitting in central Canada may not have all the tools, knowledge or facts about how to treat areas far removed, be it western Canada or Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland, northern Ontario or northern Quebec. We need to have the people in the areas who are knowledgeable and understand our differences.
During the last session of Parliament our Government created three economic development programs. One was the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which was established in June 1987. Some $1.5 billion was transferred from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to this agency. The head office was set up in Moncton, where people from Atlantic Canada could explain their problems to people in Moncton who are knowledgeable about Atlantic Canada. In that way they could attempt to diversify and to establish agencies and companies to create jobs that are meaningful to the people who live in Atlantic Canada, rather than central Canada deciding what is good for them.
In July 1987 our Government announced the formation of FEDNOR, the northern Ontario special diversification agency. It was funded with $55 million over a five-year period from the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion. Sault Ste. Marie has the head office, with satellite offices in Sudbury and Thunder Bay. These offices allow people to have direct input into the difficulties which people in northern Ontario face.
Northern Ontario is very different from southern Ontario, and it is the duty of the Government to recognize and understand the disparities between all regions and to use the people in the local areas to give us information.
Our Government also created the Western Diversification Fund, with its head office in your City of Edmonton, Mr. Speaker. I know you are pleased to see that we announced $1.2 billion of new funding over five years for that specific agency. This will facilitate the West in diversifying.
April 20, 1989

Industry, Science and Technology
I am very proud of the West, where we have agriculture and petroleum as our main industries. We are attempting to increase tourism, which is so important to the area.
Far too often, people in central Canada were telling people in the West what we should be doing. Westerners now have the opportunity to inform the Government and be able to have assistance in setting up new businesses. We will not compete with other companies in Canada to destroy employment levels. We want to increase our exports while cutting our imports. We are looking for new diversification, and this is what makes the Bill so interesting. This legislation strengthens science and technology but also strengthens regional development.
Prior to 1984 ERDA agreements were very popular. They were administered through the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. At that time Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia were not represented within the Liberal Government. It appeared that the funding which came to the West was extremely limited. I believe Alberta received one ERDA agreement for less than $35 million.
I am not suggesting that I am not pleased to see funding go to areas like Quebec and Ontario. It is important because we need their economic activity to balance regional disparity. I am glad that southern Ontario is active and that Quebec is improving.
However, prior to 1984 the West was simply not recognized. That is what this Government has fought for. It has listened to Members of Parliament from the outlying regions and realized that one of the biggest mistakes of the federal Government was not to listen to other knowledgeable people in the field.
We are dividing a Department to make industry, science and technology a Department that deals with the specifics of industry involvement in science and technology across Canada, while regional development is handled elsewhere.
I truly support the Government's action. I look forward to working with my Western Diversification Office, as I am sure my colleagues from the East Coast are working with their ACOA office. It is working and this is the right way to go.
We have to find ways to improve the science and technology sector, there is no doubt about that. We have learned that we cannot separate or compartmentalize various groups. We cannot have science working here,
research working over there, and industry working over there. Over the past two or three years, we have communicated with industry, with post-secondary institutions, and with junior colleges and research centres. We have worked with the various agencies and with provincial Governments.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) formed an advisory board on science and technology, bringing together 30 of the best men and women from across Canada to tell us their concerns and how we can best address them. We communicated with all these groups so that we could get the best of all worlds.
We have limited funds, and I think all Canadians recognize that now. The level of the deficit and the debt is of major importance. Of equal importance, however, is bringing together these various communities so they can zero in on how best to teach science and technology in the universities and how best to apply it to the industries so we can become more efficient, more productive and can go into the 20th century fearing no other country.
The face of international trade has changed over the last number of years. Indeed, it will change more. A great deal of our international trade was with the European community, and when the EEC was formed, we saw 12 countries come together to form an economic union. There are 350 million people involved in the EEC. It has a tremendous market-place and science and technology expertise to draw upon from various countries. It has done extremely well and has been very successful.
Canada realized that we were slowly losing our trade with western Europe. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States is one step, but we are now looking to the Pacific Rim, Japan, Korea, Indonesia and Thailand, as well as pursuing trade with our colleagues in South America. The outstanding and phenomenal Free Trade Agreement will secure our market-place with our friends south of the border, but Canadians realize that they themselves have to become more efficient. I am very pleased that we are now starting to focus on a Department that can draw the best knowledge from all areas.
I know the Hon. Member across the way mentioned that not enough has been done in areas of concern to his Party, and I agree with him. There is a lot more to be done. His concerns are also my concerns. We have started out investigating the problems, calling for all sorts of communities at all levels of education and industry to participate in finding recommendations that will solve the problems.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
I suppose it was in the early 1980s-and you can correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, because you have been here for quite a few years longer than I have-that a program was implemented by the former Government for scientific tax credits. I believe the way that Government wanted to increase science and technology was by giving tax credits to industries that came forward with new ideas and technologies. There was an envelope of $350 million for that particular program, and in 1984 when the Conservative Government took over, it took us a year and half to resolve the difficulties with the program and less than a year to cancel it because it was being totally abused. Canadians were developing things that had already been developed or were submitting proposals that were not scientific or would not advance technology. They were simply there to grab funding.
We are dealing with taxpayers' dollars. It is the job of all Hon. Members from all sides of the House to look after the taxpayers' dollars and to see that they go into the right places, the places of need. By the time we had researched many of the proposals under that project, we found that it had cost the taxpayers $1.9 billion. Very little science and technology expertise came out of that, though perhaps a few good proposals did.
Let us put the money to good use. Let us not direct it from the Government. Let us direct it from all areas of the community so everyone can benefit and so we can get the best bang for our buck.
We must strengthen our performance in international trade. That is one of the directions being taken by this Bill. I mentioned the enhancement of the science base which will be done through the centres of excellence which were announced by the Government. We put $240 million into the centres of excellence program, an extra $200 million into the granting councils over the next few years, $80 million into Canadian Scholarship Programs as well as $500 million into technology. This indicates to me, and I think to my colleagues on this side of the House, that we do take science and technology extremely seriously.
Again, I do not suggest that this is enough, but it is a start. We have to monitor the situation constantly, and watch how well we are performing and look for ways to
make changes if so needed, or improve what we have done.
Greater attention has to be paid to developing our human resource base, and through these grants that have been made to the universities and the different agencies, we can reach out to people who are on scholarships or at universities, people who can utilize this funding. We are involving private enterprise which probably has the best knowledge of how to go about the development of science and technology.
We are creating a climate for interaction. Whether dealing with science and technology, the energy industry or the transportation industry, we have to talk to the people. That is what we have done. We talked to the people about this Bill, about the Western Accord, about the Atlantic Accord, and about the Newfoundland Accord. We are talking to the people about some tie-ups we seem to be having at Pearson International Airport, but we have resolved many of those. We are going to the people to see how they believe we should alleviate the problem.
We are not coming down from the top; we are coming up from the bottom. This is what Canadians want. We are letting them speak. We are here to represent them; we are not here to tell them how to go about their business. We are interacting and we are fostering a spirit of entrepreneurship. There is nothing greater than entrepreneurship.
Let me tell Hon. Members about a contract let by the Western Development Agency. A gentleman who lives on the outskirts of Edmonton put forward a one-page proposal to the Western Diversification Department. Fine pipe used in the petroleum industry for seismic gets all curled up and is then no good. This gentleman developed a little gadget that would straighten that pipe so it could be used over and over again. He has gotten into business and is hiring people. With this development of technology, he has created a superb business from a waste product that we had no further use for.
It is the little guys that count as well as the big guys. That is exactly what this Bill will do. It will diversify out to the regions so that we will know what the people need.
Entrepreneurship is alive and well in the West, and it is alive and well in Atlantic Canada. People in northern
April 20, 1989

Quebec have many areas of potential. Sometimes they need a little help with an extra tool or a boost with a loan or a loan guarantee. However, most of the loan guarantees through the Western Diversification Office and FEDNOR will be paid back. It might not be for five or six years. Realistically I know that not everything is 100 per cent successful, but hopefully most of them will be successful and we can almost have a self-sustaining fund where the Government has put the money into the various agencies. Western Diversification is proving this quite nicely. Over time we will be receiving money back from successful companies. Westerners do not want grants or giveaways. They just need a little boost like my colleagues in northern Quebec where there are difficulties. We are facilitating those people to become job creators. Perhaps through their own business they may create 2, 52, or 1,052 jobs. That is how we all started.
Separating regional development from science and technology and from ERDA agreements has to be the manner in which to proceed. We have put more emphasis on science and technology, and that will allow this specific Department to get right into this issue. There is no need to have Industry, Science and Technology if industries are not working with the researchers. I am very pleased to support this Bill, and I look forward to seeing it go into committee where we can have further debate.
There is no doubt that it has taken us three or four years to come up with this answer, which is the correct one for the moment. Obviously the world will change in a few years. At that point in time perhaps we will have to take another look, and perhaps it will be changed again.
The Minister has done a good job. He took DRIE and MOSST and created this new Department. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is also the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. Under him is a specific Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Winegard), the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Hockin)-a specific Minister to keep hands on western diversification, a specific Minister to keep hands on FEDNOR, and a specific Minister to keep hands on ACOA. This means that those Ministers have a lot more direction and control over exactly what is going on.
Industry, Science and Technology
Over the last three or four years I am pleased to see that we have taken the fine words of advice from the Prime Minister's advisory council and from people across Canada. We are not telling Canadians what to do. We are working for Canadians to create a better country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Restigouche.


Mr. Arseneault:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear that the Government is concerned with regional disparity. I am very displeased with some of the actions taken to solve those problems. First, the new recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Program will certainly affect the area I come from. Restigouche has 15.3 per cent unemployment. One can talk about training, but if there are no jobs to train for, I do not think we are going to get much benefit.
I was also glad to hear that the Member is quite concerned with ERDA. Perhaps the Hon. Member should transmit that message to the Government. For example, six out of 10 ERDA agreements for forestry have not been renewed. They expired on March 31.
How can the Hon. Member stand up and place such importance on the ERDA agreements when the Government has not renegotiated and signed those forestry agreements with the six out of ten provinces where they have expired?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I certainly appreciate the questions of my colleague. In regard to diversifying into the outlying areas in western and Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland, northern Quebec, and northern Ontario, I do recognize that some ERDA agreements have been terminated. There is no doubt that there is still time for negotiations and time for further development in that area.
The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), together with the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and the Prime Minister, are very concerned with the high unemployment and the situation that exists in certain regional areas of Canada. The Budget is coming down one week today. I believe that any negotiations or issuing of new ERDA agreements will be held off until after April 27. At that point in time perhaps we could address this particular question.
The Hon. Member raised the question of unemployment insurance. In her policy statement on unemployment insurance the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) did not make massive changes. We are attempting to provide funding to retrain

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
people. I take seriously the statement of the Hon. Member that there is nothing to retrain them for. I would certainly have to look into that further and more seriously.
Whether a person comes from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. or Alberta, people in Canada have the spirit to get out and work. Unemployment insurance has a job to do. It has to help people who perhaps have lost their jobs. In my estimation it is not an income supplement. It is not a guaranteed income. It has to be used to retrain people. There is no sense in collecting the insurance, not taking part in retraining or returning to school, and then being faced with having to go out and seek employment when unemployment insurance terminates. I know much of the employment in the area of the Hon. Member is seasonal. I recognize that forestry and fisheries are seasonal. The area of the Hon. Member has specific problems that perhaps some areas of Canada do not have.
When a person collects unemployment insurance, he or she has to retrain. Industries are changing across Canada. What is good today may not be good tomorrow. People across Canada realize that unemployment insurance is not an income supplement or an income guarantee. It is there to help between jobs when a person is suffering. It is also there for retraining. I have to support the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She is attempting to address this issue. She has given us some excellent policy statements, and I stand behind those.
Retraining is the only manner in which the Hon. Member's constituents can get jobs. I hope to be working with people in ACOA. There is always room to improve. Nobody has the perfect solution. Perhaps we can improve ways of administering funding, or the types of industries that are being supported in order that there can be a broader base in eastern Canada.


Mr. Foster:: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words concerning regional development in the Bill which will be reorganizing the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow) mentioned the FEDNOR program. This is a very modest program of $55 million over a five-year period for some 90 per cent of the land mass of Ontario and the whole of northern Ontario. That amount of $8 million a year in grants and some $3 million a year in loan guarantees do not go very far when we are trying to restructure industries. What we are concerned about is
whether that modest $55 million allocated for the next five-year period will survive the slaughter house that will allegedly take place a week from tonight. A report in The Toronto Star earlier this week said that deep cuts ahead are feared for the regions. It is suggested that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion's budget will be cut from $1.3 billion to $250 million a year.
Would the Hon. Member reassure us on this side of the House that programs like FEDNOR will not be cut back? That is our first and primary concern.
The second concern relates not only to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion but to the ERDA agreements themselves. In northern Ontario we are very dependent on the forest industry. During the last five years we have had a program for forest renewal and development in which the federal and provincial Governments each put $75 million over that five-year period. That program has run out. There has been no authorization by the Government of Canada to the officials in the Department in Sault Ste. Marie to start negotiations with the Province of Ontario. If that program is not renewed, we will see a major decline in our capacity to provide forest renewal in the years ahead. That is one ERDA agreement that has not been renewed, but there is a tourism development agreement that runs out this year as well as a native economic development agreement. If one reads the Speech from the Throne one is not sure whether any of the ERDA agreements will be renewed.
I agree that the Department is important in regional development, but ERDA agreements are important from two points of view. First, they allow the federal Government to put money into regional development programs. All the levers of economic development are not with the federal Government. Often they are in areas of provincial responsibility which allow the Government to put those funds into provincial areas. Second, it allows the Government to bring up the slow growth areas of the country to a more national average.
I would be very concerned that all we have is this Bill before us today, and we will not have ERDA agreements which allow the federal Government to put money into areas of provincial jurisdiction which are very important for economic development in a region. I hope the Hon. Member can reassure me that those funds and programs which lapsed this year will be renewed.
April 20, 1989


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his questions. We have worked together on a few committees and I have always enjoyed our association.
As I recall the first thing the Member mentioned was something from The Toronto Star about gross cuts. I do not take my direction from The Toronto Star, and I do not think the Government of Canada takes its direction from The Toronto Star. Obviously the paper is speculating. What it says is totally hypothetical, and the paper is out to tell Canadians that everything will be cut. That is simply not true.
The Member said that in the Speech from the Throne there was no sure word that these ERDA agreements would be capped, renegotiated or kept intact. When I read the Speech from the Throne I found nothing that said they would be dismantled or not be renegotiated.
I think the Hon. Member is repeating hypothetical statements. Obviously I do not know what is in the Budget and if I did I would not be here. I ask him not to speculate and not to listen to what The Toronto Star reports. I tell him not to worry in thinking that the Throne Speech says programs will be cut when they are not.
Northern Ontario has forestry ERDA agreements, but there are other forestry areas across Canada that are also extremely important. I know that northern Ontario is the Member's region and I support the Member discussing the problems of his area. There is room for negotiation. Whether at the same magnitude, I do not have the answer.
FEDNOR was announced in July 1987,1 believe. This was a brand new Department which took six months to get on stream. Anything brand new takes a while to get organized, but it is operating well and effectively. We are always, however, interested in finding ways to improve it. I am interested in the Hon. Member's suggestions and would like to co-operate with him on how best to make FEDNOR work and work better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
Industry, Science and Technology


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3 today, particularly to its amendments. I oppose the thrust of the Bill and the three vital flaws that I see which run counter to the stated objectives in the Bill. They are as the Bill states: to strengthen the national economy and to increase international competitiveness of Canadian industry.
By repealing the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion it is my belief the Government is signalling very clearly that it is willing to fragment the very necessary regional development tools and programs which our country has required and will continue to require to reduce the significant economic disparities present across the land. Instead of the co-ordinated program of regional development what we will end up with is a kind of hodgepodge of programs tucked away in various legislative areas with very little co-ordination or overlap.
I come from a constituency out West, Okanagan- Shuswap, in the southern interior region of British Columbia. We are still struggling, believe it or not, with unemployment levels that exceed 17 per cent. In fact, the latest figure indicates that in the northern part of my riding the unemployment level exceeds 19.6 per cent. We have real problems of regional economic disparity.
In Atlantic Canada we see that the situation is very similar to what we have out West. Both the West Coast and the East Coast remain resource driven economies that are in desperate need of economic diversification. We need a far greater commitment from the Government toward regional development than we have had in the past. We do not need the kind of legislation such as is intended in this present Bill which really serves to fragment further regional development programs and efforts.
Second, the Bill proposes that the responsibility for regional development in Ontario and Quebec shall fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology. This implies that the economic development of the West or of Atlantic Canada with respect to science and technology will not be a primary mandate of this particular Ministry. This sends a signal to the scientific community across Canada that concentrated growth in this industry can be expected to take place in Central Canada. Once again, we see evidence that the Government is intending to provide favouritism to Central Canada at the expense of its regions, such as the West and Atlantic Canada. It makes me wonder whether the Government has ever realized that there is life west of the Rocky Mountains.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
There is a good deal of scientific research going on out West and a good deal of potential for increased research efforts. As has been the case for so long, the attention has been centred in mainly two provinces, Ontario and Quebec. We are losing scientific talent from the West, simply because of a chronic lack of research and development capital. We are losing prime opportunities for economic diversification and technological advancement in our western provinces because of this Government's centralist attitude toward economic development and reducing regional disparities.
I trained as a biochemist. I worked for some time in the research community in British Columbia. I noticed first-hand a chronic lack of research funding, not totally the fault of this Government. Much of the blame has to placed upon the shoulders of the provincial Government. Certainly, there has been a chronic lack of funding by both institutions with regard to research and development.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Not wanting to move back East, I eventually moved out of the scientific community and finally ended up in politics and came back East anyway. That is life I guess.
My story raises a very serious point. There continue to exist major inequities in the disbursement of our federal research and development capital across this country. I was talking to members of the scientific community, and they left with me an interesting document. It is entitled, Coherent Educational and Scientific Research Policies for Canada. An interesting point made in the article demonstrates that public funding for full-time enrolled students across this country, declined by 11 per cent, from 1977 to 1986. In equivalent dollar values, it was an 11 per cent decline.
I heard many of the members on the government side pay tribute to the priority that science, technology and education will be given by this Government. Those comments sound very hollow in the reality of what has actually taken place over the past years.
There is another interesting aspect which is most telling. I will quote directly from the article, which talks about enhancing the research and development effort of Canada. It states that by any yardstick, Canada's research effort is inadequate. Compared with similar economically developed countries, the share of gross national output devoted to research is far too small. This fact is widely recognized to the point that the Prime Minister pledged to double Canada's spending on research and development during his Governments first term of office.
We are at the beginning of his second term of office, and we are nowhere near to beginning on the road to doubling this research effort. There is a very interesting table in this report. It shows eight of the western democratic nations and the percentage that is spent in research and development in terms of the Gross Domestic Product: Sweden, the United States, Germany, France, Norway, Finland and Canada. Canada is at the bottom of the list.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: This is significantly below the research and development efforts of all those other nations. I would say to the Members across the floor of the House that the lip service that they have paid in terms of their commitment to research and development efforts in education, ring very hollow in the face of the reality of the problems in education, science and research development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: It is time they put their money where their mouth is, and committed more funds both to post-secondary education and scientific research and development.
This proposed legislation is only going to deepen the inequities caused by the Ministry of Science and Technology in concentrating its efforts in Ontario and Quebec at the expense of the other regions. This is a major disappointment to our scientific community and to our technological industries that are located elsewhere.
I have concerns about the intention of this proposed legislation to roll into the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, responsibility for tourism development. It is a strange place indeed for tourism to be located. Maintaining the Department of Tourism as a type of sub-Ministiy, buried within the bowels of this larger Ministry, fails to acknowledge the growing importance of
April 20, 1989

this industry in Canada today. It fails to recognize the commitment that this Government made back in the election campaign. In the election campaign of 1984 the commitment was to increase the profile of tourism by creating a separate Ministry of Tourism, highlighting tourism and giving it the funding necessary to do the job.
Since that time, we have had speaker after speaker from this Government praise the importance of the tourism industry.
I have gone over the debates of the House of Commons since 1985, all summarized in the tourism debates. Time after time we have seen Ministers and back-benchers on the government side get up and praise the tourism industry, and the fine job that it is doing across Canada, and the commitment that the Government will make to increase its tourism efforts.


An Hon. Member:: Some day.


Mr. MacWIllian:: My colleague says: " Some day". We on this side are still waiting for that day.
There was a most illuminating comment made on October 23, 1986, by my colleague, the Member for Beausejour, (Mr. Robichaud), in his comments, in the Commons debates. I would like to read these comments into the record. Mr. Robichaud stated: "The Government has bragged about having created an independent portfolio for tourism". What happened to the Department of Tourism in the Cabinet's last shuffle? In June last, the Prime Minister simply struck it off. The Department of Tourism is no more. We now have a Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Hockin). TIAC chairman, Walter Tilden, expressed his disappointment by stating that: "It would appear that the Government does not know what to do with tourism. The executive director of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, John Lawson, also expressed disappointment by stating:
"We are back to a combined Ministry. It is a clear sign that tourism is once again relegated to a backroom". Those comments were made on October 23, 1986. Unfortunately, I would like to submit to you that things have not changed. The Government is once again relegating tourism to the backroom of economic development. The Hon. Minister of State is probably reluctant to make an issue out of this. I do not blame him. One does not want to bite the hand that feeds you. I would like to help out my colleague, the Hon. Minister, in our mutual attempts to increase the economic clout of his
Industry, Science and Technology
Department. It is easier for me to criticize the Government, than it is for him to do so.
Canada's tourism industry has a bigger international market than lumber, newsprint, or crude petroleum, and it outperforms wheat and natural gas combined. We are not talking about a small economic impact. It has a growth rate which, for the past 10 years, surpassed that of the major industrial sectors. It pumps $21 billion into the national economy, $6.3 billion of which is foreign revenue. Nationally, the industry employs 600,000 people directly, and another 500,000 indirectly. Over 600,000 tourism businesses are in Canada, the majority of which are small and mid-size operations, where 80 per cent of our job creation takes place. Tourism revenue pumps $9 billion annually into government coffers. Some 6.7 cents of every dollar spent in Canada is spent on its tourism products. Through this legislation the Government wants to delegate the Department of Tourism to the back-burner of economic development by hiding it within the proposed Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology.
Tourism is Canada's fastest growing industry. Throughout every province it has ranked first in the creation of new jobs. There is no other industry which has contributed more to Canada's regional development. I do not think that the Government will give my colleague, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Hockin), the opportunity to oversee a Ministry of full status.
Tourism is already the largest industry in Canada. From 1975 to 1985 the workforce in tourism-related industries has in fact grown by some 90 per cent. By the year 2000 it is expected that it will be the leading industry in Canada. I wish to read to Hon. Members a statement from a 1988 Tourism Canada publication entitled The Challenge in Tourism Product Development. This is from a Ministry circular. It states: "Given the growth potential and the significant economic contribution in Canada the key question is whether or not Canada can in fact meet the expectations of the market-place in the future, particularly with respect to the quality of its tourism product which will play a large part in determining the future success of the tourism industry". The key comment that this publication makes is with respect to whether or not we can meet the expectations of the market-place and that in Canada it is critical that we become globally competitive in the tourism industry.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Although tourism is a growth industry, our international tourism deficit has increased over the last few years. It is also steadily growing. We have reached an all-time high in our tourism trade deficit. We now have a deficit that is at $5.2 billion annually. That figure is taken directly from this Ministry circular.
I submit that to remain globally competitive in the international tourism market-place we will have to do better than we have in developing and marketing our tourism product. It will take initiatives that can only be developed if we have a full-fledged tourism Ministry, not a miniscule Department that is buried in the confines and the bowels of some other Ministry.
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada has repeatedly called for the establishment of a separate Ministry of Tourism with an equal status to other major economic sectors. Over the last 10 years the federal investment in tourism marketing has not even kept pace with inflation. We have now reached the point at which some individual states in the United States of America spend more on tourism marketing and tourism development than does the Government of Canada. I suggest that our efforts have to be doubled and redoubled. It is not enough for an industry that is poised throughout the world to become the largest world-wide by the 21st century. I think we will have to do a lot more in order to catch up to this very rapidly changing global market in tourism.
The tourism industry is not satisfied with anything less than a full-fledged Ministry of Tourism. The Government made a public commitment eight years ago to highlight tourism and to give it the promotion that it deserves today. This Bill clearly demonstrates that the promise has been broken and that tourism will continue to be treated as a junior Department with a budget that is inadequate to do the job.
In summary, once again the Government is demonstrating its modus operandi of the last few years of not spoiling a good election promise by actually doing something about it. I would like to recommend that the Government consider the striking of the Department of Tourism as an adjunct to the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology, as is recommended in this legislation.
Finally, I would like also to recommend that the Government introduce further legislation that would in fact establish a separate and full-fledged Ministry of Tourism. I would add that we have to provide the legislative clout to ensure that the tourism industry receive the kind of attention and the kind of federal commitment that it deserves today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James).


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Shuswap (Mr. MacWilliam). I am pleased that a member of the socialist Party is so concerned about entrepreneurship. It is absolutely refreshing that the Hon. Member is concerned about tourism and the wherewithal of the people who are in business in that sector. That is excellent.
However, I am a little concerned about some of the things that may be missing in his analysis of what is going on, especially with respect to the regional initiatives that we are taking. In tourism a regional approach is needed. I did not hear him giving any accolades to the Government for taking such initiatives. It is certain that tourism has a different complexion in different parts of the country. It needs local initiative, not only through the DRIE Department, which will soon be the Department of Industry, Science and Technology but also through the Department of Employment through the community futures program, which also has direct local input of which tourism operators can take advantage through training or special initiatives.
The Hon. Member also forgets the extensive study the Government conducted especially on the American market so that we could identify the kind of wants of the tourists there. It is our biggest and closest market. A whole new approach in terms of the proper type of advertising to attract American tourists to our market is necessary.
I have a real problem about Hon. Members talking about adding Ministries, and then after a full Ministry is put in place they will be saying that the Government has too many Ministries. I hope that the Hon. Member will reflect upon the regionalized approach we are taking to business in our country. I want to tell the Hon. Member that I sat on the DRIE Committee throughout the last four years. We worked very hard at allowing for a regionalized approach.
April 20, 1989

I would like to conclude by talking about this centralist Canada stuff. Southwestern Ontario has areas that need assistance on a regionalized basis. Just because Ontario has a fairly buoyant market does not mean that every community or area in southwestern Ontario has that same buoyancy. We need an opportunity to have self-directed funding to areas in Ontario.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague, particularly his comments about finding so many new and refreshing ideas in the New Democratic Party. I want to say to the Member that if you look really close you will find that there are lots of refreshing ideas on this side of the House. I am glad you are paying attention to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to ask the Hon. Member to direct his comments to the Chair.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: That was through you, of course, Mr. Speaker.
I also want to add that I do not know where in the House it came from but I did get an urgent message in the middle of my speech stating: "Mr. MacWilliam, your fly is down". I do not know quite where it came from but I am somewhat suspicious indeed.
I hardly even flinched, too,I was really trying not to look and see.
As to my second comment to the Hon. Member regarding the regional aspect of tourism development, I want to say to the Member that I appreciate his comments regarding the necessity for increased regional emphasis on tourism development. The points he made are very valid. However this Government has not committed itself to the extent of the agreements that he is talking about now, the ERDA agreements, in terms of the tourist industry subagreements and in terms of the forestry industry regional development agreement. Half of those agreements are expired. The other half will be expired within the next year or so. Would the Member on behalf of his Government make a firm commitment that these regional development agreements will have a full commitment from this Government in the future?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will entertain another question or comment from the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Tremblay) and a very short reply from the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Shuswap (Mr. MacWilliam).
Industry, Science and Technology


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Shuswap (Mr. MacWilliam), this is a Bill that concerns regional development and provides for creating a separate section of the Department to take care of regional development in Ontario and Quebec, a section that would perform more or less the same functions as those of the Department of Western Economic Diversification and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
These functions include a number of important responsibilities, one being to express the views of the regions concerned when national policies are get. Furthermore, these new agencies for the management, co-ordination and planning of regional development have additional resources which they have been given to enable them to have access to national programs.
We are not talking about excluding people from national programs. Our perspective is to have additional resources that will enable the regions-.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's objective is not to create components-to put regional development in separate compartments but to rely on the dynamic energy of the regions, with some help from the federal Government, to have access to all national programs.
I hope that some day-there are regions that today are getting special funding and that will no longer need it when they have become as dynamic as Southwestern Ontario and, I hope, your own riding.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the Member makes comment with regard to regional economic development. His argument is somewhat suspect because in fact the legislation in front of us states very clearly that the mandate of the proposed Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology regarding the regional component concerns itself with only two provinces: Ontario and Quebec. By implication that mandate excludes subsequent regional development vis-a-vis science and technology for other provinces. The necessity for that co-ordination of regional development efforts, has not been recognized. There will be three agencies for regional economic development: one through the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology; the second agency with funds filed through the Western Diversification Fund; and the third industry for the East, the Atlantic Opportunities Agency.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
We have three agencies with basically the same mandate. There will be less opportunity for the co-ordination of regional development efforts as a result of the separation of the mandate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate? Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien), the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), the Government House Leader wishes to rise.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There have been discussions with the Official Opposition which has the opportunity to frame the motion for debate tomorrow during the allotted opposition day. I understand that the motion which has been placed with the fable calls for two days' debate to which the Opposition is entitled to under the rules, with a vote at the end of the second day. We feel that the subject matter of the debate is important. It is important also that Members who may be in their ridings have a full opportunity to come back and enter the debate on the second day, and there should be some certainty as to when the second day is. For that reason I am rising now to indicate that Monday will also be an allotted day, which will enable the debate on this particular motion to take place on two consecutive days and give all Members an opportunity to return and participate in the debate. As I understand, there will be a vote on Monday evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On the same point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to explain that the Liberal caucus feels very strongly about this issue. If I was upset earlier this day, it was basically because as Whip and Deputy House Leader, I have to forewarn our Members of subject matters coming up.
I had been told earlier this week that there would be no opposition day this week, therefore I had let some Members go to their ridings which are far and difficult to reach such as Members of the Northwest Territories. They have an interest in the subject and would like to discuss and debate it. I have now had time to talk to them and ask them to come back to the House tomorrow and Monday. They will be here.
Therefore perhaps we are innovating, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that we have called for two days. According to Standing Order 81(14), the duration of debate on this motion is to be two sitting days commencing on Friday, April 21, with all questions being put no later than 15 minutes before the time of adjournment on the second day.
I have a certain number of Members who are interested in the subject. They want to raise the matter and discuss it thoroughly. I am happy that the Government has seen fit to call the second day on Monday, the 24th of April.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we would probably agree to it, but in the absence of our House Leader, I would like a minute or two to speak with the Government House Leader or the Whip of the Liberal Party. Perhaps some of our Party were consulted, but the Deputy House Leader was not here at the time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter which is debatable with House Leaders. It was a question of when it would be best for the House to hear the two days. Since the motion was framed for two days and put down for two days, it then became a question of our deciding as a Government when to allocate the second day. We felt that allocating it immediately, that is on Monday, would be in the best interest of all Parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter for agreement. It is more a matter of the designation of opposition days, which the Government is doing. We are officially designating Monday as an opposition day, during which the second day of debate on the Official Opposition motion will take place.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, during its first mandate, the Government had an opportunity to thoroughly examine each and every area of activities, each and every industry. Our goal was to take stock of the situation as it existed in Canada and determine our strong and weak points in order to develop strategies to successfully meet the challenges of our world and those of future generations.
As each Member of this House could realize, the Government has done away with the practice of developing policies in isolation, because, in this respect, past federal Governments have had a very poor record. Since 1984, this Government has defined itself as one of openness and consultation. That is why we have set up consultation mechanisms wherever the efficient intervention of the State was required.
April 20, 1989

Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry was certainly no exception. During our research and consultations, we have come up with extremely eloquent data. For instance, in Canada, no industry creates as many jobs as tourism. Some 600,000 Canadians earn their living in that industry and hold a great many types of occupations.
Mr. Speaker, 600,000 people are working in the tourist industry. That represents approximately 5 per cent of the jobs nationwide. In terms of revenues, I have checked the lastest available statistics, those of 1987, and I have found that foreign tourists had spent nearly $21 billion in Canada.
I will go further and say that the tourist industry creates more jobs than the airspace, financial services and agricultural industries. I would go even further. Tourist-related activities rank second, right behind the automobile industry in terms of total production and job creation.
Finally, the tourist industry outmatches the car industry in terms of economic growth as well as job creation. Tourism certainly deserves our full attention, for it is much more than just a pleasant distraction. We must see it as a dynamic economic force in full expansion.
As a consequence, the Government had no choice but to take action and make sure that the tourist industry maintains and even accelerates its growth. As I was saying a while ago, our initial approach to this issue was based on consultation with the main players in every region of this great country.
For example, our Government has organized the national convention on the tourism of tomorrow, which brought together the private sector and all levels of government to review their respective priorities and strengthen their co-operation.
We have also established the tourism ministers conference and the Tourism Marketing Council, among other things.
The Canadian Government has sponsored the most ambitious study ever done on the American pleasure travel market. We were more than willing to share the findings of that research with the provinces and the private sector. As far as tourism is concerned, the Government is convinced that any action to strengthen an industry must be taken in a true spirit of solidarity.
Industry, Science and Technology
As I was saying, tourism is one of Canada's most important economic activities in terms of sales, revenue in strong foreign currency, tax revenue and job creation. Are we to believe that the growth rate of our international tourism will keep on climbing? Among factors conducive to tourism, the sustainable economic prosperity of industrialized countries comes in first place.
Until now, it is the industrialized western countries which have done the most for tourism development. But the Communist countries are now experiencing a remarkable economic expansion. No wonder many analysts predict that by the year 2000 tourism will be the biggest industry in the world.
Canada's performance since 1980, Mr. Speaker, is quite impressive, especially in comparison with our main competitors. Those are not my words but those of the World Tourism Organization, which reports every year in American dollars the international revenue of major countries, excepting the transportation cost of international travellers.
Indeed, from 1980 to 1987, Canada's international tourism revenue increased by 8.2 per cent annually on average, compared to 6.2 per cent for the United States and 5.2 per cent for the United Kingdom, for example. In fact, our country is ninth in the world for international tourism revenue.
I do not think it is an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker, to predict that Canada made the right choice in time and that its future prospects are excellent. But there is no question of stopping along the way and presuming arbitrarily that the game is already won. We have realized that as the number of travelers increases, so does the competition.
We must also recognize that tourists are more and more demanding. If we do not act to meet their expectations, we will have to forget about the exciting prospects the future holds in store for us.
Obviously, it is in our country's interest to have a well-articulated tourism development strategy that leaves nothing to chance. For this, Mr. Speaker, we need to know our major tourist attractions perfectly and do everything to market them.
So what are these combinations of attractions, events and services that have come to be called "tourism products"? You will see that we are very well endowed in this regard. Canada can pride itself in four major tourism products which have proven themselves over the years. First comes our outstanding strong point, traveling tourism.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Certainly, the diversity of our scenery, our wild coastline and millions of acres of almost undisturbed nature put us in a class by ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, keep in mind that Canada has a network of 34 national parks and wildlife reserves. These parks would play a larger role still if they had improved animation services and close at hand top-quality lodging facilities, and if they were open for a longer period.
No-one maintains that Canada's climate is ideal for year-round tourism, but that is no reason to go into hibernation the moment the first snow flake hits the ground. On the contrary, we ought to take the initiative and make the best we can with the kind of activities which are appropriate on colder days.
Mr. Speaker, this bring me to our second, most sought-after product: open air tourism, sports, and adventure. We are highly competitive in that sector, what with land and water excursions, hunting and fishing, safaris and other activities which attract higher income travelers.
The third element of potential growth has to be urban tourism. In recent years our infrastructures in urban centres has undergone tremendous development. Such industrial and cultural centres as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa offer top-notch attractions in gastronomy, entertainment, quality accomodation, and shopping opportunities, to name a few. Urban tourism is growing, and although some progress has been made our major cities still have a long way to go to project a stronger image and appeal.
Mr. Speaker, this gives you an idea of the state of tourism in Canada, and it could be the starting point of the Government's strategy.
As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, Canada's advantages are well known the world over. I might add that our country's excellent reputation as a pacific and welcoming nation can only serve the interests of the tourist industry.
Canada can rightfully be looked upon as a haven of peace, and our hospitable climate is attracting international tourist. Still, Mr. Speaker, competition is becoming stiffer because, not unlike Canada, the goverment of all industrialized countries strongly support tourism and spare no effort to lure the traveling public who is increasingly being sought after worldwide.
Our research indicate that the number of tourists who might visit Canada is likely to increase significantly over the next six years. We estimate that if we make a concerted marketing effort and accurately pinpoint the winning destinations we might be able to double our income from international tourism by 1994 and reach $14 billion.
Among other things, our free trade agreement with the United States will make it easier for Canadians and Americans to visit one another. That is a factor which ideally underlies our strategic approach to tourism, for obviously the United States is our best costumer.
We intend to intensify our efforts in areas of highest growth potential, namely the South Atlantic States, those among the Central Atlantic Coast, New England and the Rockies.
In addition to the expected flow of neighbours from down South, we have noted a seemingly irreversible movement of Asian tourists to whom Canada's natural beauty is a tremendous fascination.
In that respect an estimated 10 million Japanese tourists could cross over next year, almost double the number in 1985. To Canada this is a potential market we have no intention of neglecting, Mr. Speaker, especially since the Japanese of all international tourists are the ones with the highest per capita expenditurrate.
Far from us to neglect more traditional European markets. More French visitors come here each year, just as West German and British ones. Those are nations higly sought after by every country having even a small degree of sophistication in their tourist infrastructures. We not are the only ones in the race, Mr. Speaker, but if Canada can intensify its development and marketting efforts abroad, we will increase in proportion our share of the international market. Like my colleague Tom Hockin, the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism), I think we will have to predict future trends and thereby get ahead of the competition.
Being a with a country relatively small population and rather modest promotion and advertising financial resources for that reason, we will have to be innovative and creative if we are to catch the imagination of potential tourists. There again the collegial approach, the sharing of our talents and initiatives will play a capital role.
April 20, 1989

We also identified the nature of the basic problems we must tackle to improve our tourist industry's performance. Those problems arise mainly in the areas of finance, human resources and technological adjustment.
Concerning finance, the Government is committed to gradually eliminating the imbalances that historically restricted small entrepreneurs from accessing major sources of financing. The new order that is being established in the tax regime, combined with financial circles increased awareness of the tourist industry's spinoffs, certainly will help support the initiatives of those who believe in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the quality of service, a matter directly linked to the scarecity of skilled human resources, also is a major concern.
In fact, fewer young people are available, and fewer are interested in a career in the restaurant and hotel industry, for instance. However, we cannot provide first class service without professional, well-trained staff.
We all have a responsibility to make the tourism industry more attractive to Canadian workers. We need innovative ideas and effective marketing programs to reverse a trend that is worrisome, to say the least. The Government has guaranteed its unconditional support for all types of employers who for a long time have been anxious to improve the quality of service in the tourism industry.
As for adjusting to new technologies, Mr. Speaker, our hotel chains, airline companies and travel wholesalers made that adjustment a number of years ago. Our transportation, accommodation, guided tours, entertainment and restaurants are first class, except for a certain lack of co-ordination between these sectors. We have the tools to take care of the necessary planning, but there is a certain form of misplaced individualism that seems to undermine this kind of co-ordination. We hope that our appeal for better co-operation will be answered, Mr. Speaker.
If we are prepared to tackle the problem head on and organize more package tours, Canada's reputation as a host of international calibre will continue to improve.
Industry, Science and Technology
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to summarize the pros and cons of tourism in Canada. I have made an attempt to zero in on our priorities and determine what obstacles had to be overcome. I would now like to comment briefly on the fundamental goals of the federal Government's tourism development strategy. Mr. Speaker, we must concentrate on increasing our international revenues, which means that the federal Government is helping Canada's tourism industry with a view to attracting tourists from outside Canada. More specifically, we want to improve the development of markets and products in the tourism industry; enhance the effectiveness of our international marketing activities on the principal world markets; enhance our competitive position at the international level; and help the industry to improve its human resources in management and to find the financing it needs.
To be even more specific about the measures the Government will take, it will continue to: prepare surveys and studies in order to refine its knowledge in the area of research on international tourism; acquire and maintain a thorough knowledge of the subsectors of the tourism industry, in order to make more services available; and finally, set up and manage an international marketing program.
From the various working assumptions I just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I think we can conclude it is imperative for the Government to co-ordinate its initiatives for product development and international marketing with its partners, whether these are provincial and territorial governments, municipalities or the private sector.
It is clear that this philosophy applies to any financial participation on the part of the federal Government, which must be reflected at other levels of government and other decision-making levels.
Mr. Speaker, I think the path we must follow is clear. It is the path of partnership, flexibility and dynamic programs that will guarantee the success of our strategy and a flourishing tourism industry.
Mr. Speaker, without wishing to digress, I would like to conclude by reminding Hon. Members that the Government has made an undertaking to encourage and stimulate entrepreneurship, which is one of the most consistent motors of economic growth. Many small businesses depend on a flourishing tourism industry to be successful.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
On the other hand, the tourism industry has the necessary dynamics to attract intelligent entrepreneurs who are not afraid of taking risks but can also count on finding exactly the kind of structure they need.
One last word, Mr. Speaker, to stress the important social role of tourism in Canada. Environmentally, this is a clean industry of which our fellow citizens may be proud. Mr. Speaker, tourism has become very important to Canadians.
In concluding, I want to say that thanks to the strategy I mentioned earlier, we will give this industry the attention it deserves. With so much in our favour, I am convinced that we will help enhance Canada's prestige internationally, and that in doing so, we will be able to inject across this country, the capital we need to fully develop our economic potential.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make come comments on Bill C-3, the Bill which establishes the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and repeals the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act.
As we know, the Government provided some substitutes for the West and created the Western Diversification Agency, which certainly was helpful. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he announced that agency, said that it would be new moneys. Up until now, it seems that new moneys have not been forthcoming. I hope that in the Budget the Government will provide those funds for the Western Diversification Agency.
At the same time, I would like to mention that the federal Government, as yet, has not signed an Economic Regional Development Assistance Agreement with Alberta. Alberta has been short-changed in the last five years by that agreement. Alberta received only $35 per capita. Quebec, for instance, received $90 per capita for a total of $600 million, while Alberta only received $85 million.
This Bill not only repeals the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act but creates in Part III a regional development agency for Ontario and Quebec. I hope that in the new Budget we will see a provision for Economic Regional Development Assistance Agreements to be signed with the provinces and the moneys provided so that everyone will be treated equally.
I have a letter here that I would like to put on the record. It is from the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister in Alberta. It shows that on a per capita basis Alberta received substantially less than all other provinces in the first five years of the ERDA phase. This pattern was set by decisions of the former Liberal Government in 1983-84. However, very little progress has been made in the past four and a half years to effect a fair share for Alberta.
The Government certainly has an obligation to sign a new agreement and give Alberta equal treatment with other provinces.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy). I want to mention, first, his comments about la belle province of Quebec where he was twice a candidate. So he is well aware of our potential.
Regarding agreements that should be renewed, I think he reads a great many newspapers these days, and we know that what newspapers convey is sometimes hypothetical or speculative. I believe our Government will listen to the people of Canada and in the next budget we will remember all the regions, the East, the West, the North and the South.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of my colleague and neighbour since he represents a riding in Abitibi that is next to mine in Temiscamingue. He made a long plea to the effect that tourism is an important economic and job-creating activity. If there is a region where little money has been invested in the past, it is Abitibi-Temiscamingue, in northern Quebec, a remote area where the Liberal Government never cared to put money to develop tourism.
So I would like to ask my neighbour, the Hon. Member for Abitibi, how, from the $75 million the Government has allocated for North-West development, we can expect tourism to be developed in a region such as Abitibi-Temiscamingue?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Timiskaming has mentioned, we have known since 1984 that nothing much was being done in the large regions. We know that Temiskamingue and Abitibi cover-I am saying this for the benefit of my colleagues opposite and my neighbours-an area of 800,000 square kilometers, which is over half the Province of Quebec. And, as my colleague has mentioned, we know that, under the new program for outlying areas, the people involved in
April 20, 1989

promoting tourism in our region, including the Abitibi-Temiskamingue regional tourism association in Rouyn-Noranda and the convention bureau in Val-d'Or, will try to get as much money as possible for the outlying areas, the resource regions.
If we have received those funds for tourism development, it is due to the Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who has been looking after the remote and poor regions of the country. The same goes for other regions such as Vancouver and the Maritimes. The Hon. Members have to do their job, pressure the Government and find good projects. That is why my colleague from Temiskamingue was saying: "We are ready because we understand the Government's message, we understand that there are good programs in place, while that wasn't the case under the old Liberal Government that lasted 20 years. And nothing much was done in Abitibi-Temiskamingue."


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on policy, regional development and funds allocated to regional development under this Government's policy. It is very clear that at various times, depending on the prosperity of different regions, Mr. Speaker, the funds allocated per capita in each province will vary, for a good reason: the main purpose of regional development policies is to reduce inequalities. There was a time when southern Ontario received fairly large amounts several years ago, while the West was booming-


An Hon. Member:: No!


Benoît Tremblay: Under the regional agreements, it is true. It was $536 million, just for the sake of comparison, over the last five years. It is clear that if a region becomes much more prosperous and another one has difficulties, like Western Canada, the allocation of funds is changed to restore the balance.
But there is an even more important factor: that is why coordinating agencies like the Department of Western Diversification have been created. You must not take only one factor but the whole set, and the agreements cover only part of the regional development funds. The Western Diversification Department has very large funds and works with all governments and Westerners to promote development. And I am convinced that the Department is open to continuing discussions on the agreements.
Industry, Science and Technology


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence on a very short question and a very short reply.


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Speaker, I could not resist the opportunity to rise and express my dismay at the presentations we have had over the course of the last couple of minutes. I want to applaud the Hon. Member for some of his valuable and valid positions. I was almost ready to accept that there was some merit to what the Hon. Member was saying.
Quite frankly, I was rather confused, and I saw some Members opposite express the same type of confusion, about the nature of the distribution of wealth. While there are many valid projects and programs that deserve attention, I noticed the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) and other Members opposite questioning the validity of the position of the Hon. Member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member direct the question to the Hon. Member for Abitibi?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Does the Hon. Member believe the concept of the distribution of wealth and equality through ERDA represented by a perception of how one must most quickly pillage the Treasury? If in pillaging the Treasury-


Mr. Horner:: You ought to know all about that.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The Hon. Member says that we might know about that. We have had four years of observing the masters at work. We want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would put his question, because one of his colleagues wants to speak next.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I will give him an opportunity to do that quickly. I know the Hon. Member has something right to say.
My hon. friend was talking about the redistribution of all this wealth. Is the Hon. Member going to make strong submissions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) so that the ERDA agreements to which he alluded will be applied properly and vigorously?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say very briefly that since 1984, thanks to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the funds have been distributed fairly throughout Canada and in all sectors of our great country. Were we to receive $75 million tomorrow morning for the regions of Abitibi and Temiscamingue, we would know how to use them there.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
But I thank our Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the next budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate and state that earlier this morning my colleagues in the Official Opposition set forth our position with respect to the over-all objective of this Bill to establish the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
First, Mr. Speaker, before talking about small business as an economic sector I want to say that this Government has already begun tearing down the old department by creating the Atlantic and Western Canada agencies. After that, as you may recall, we witnessed the fiasco or scandal of the Minister of Regional Development, particularly when an inquiry had to be launched because he had spent more money that had been allocated to his budget!
So in that sector, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has had its share of problems over the last four years. And today they would have us subscribe to this new philosophy-indeed this morning the Minister used such words as 'consultation, excellence, leadership, entrepreneurship'. Mr. Speaker, that is just another smokescreen, nothing but pious wishes, but what he is actually trying to say is that we are fresh into our new mandate, we have four years to make studies, but nothing concrete will ever come out of it.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from page 3 of the Bill, subclause 8(c):
(c) develop and implement national policies to foster entrepreneurship and the start-up, growth and expansion of small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, in Canada today there are 850,000-odd small businesses with fewer than 50 employees and, in the last few years, these 850,000 businesses have created 85 per cent of all new jobs in this countiy. Therefore any economic policy we plan to develop in this country ought to take into account the fact that we need small businesses operating in a stable environment and that growth has to come from that sector.
Mr. Speaker, the total lack of coherent policies concerning small- and medium-sized businesses is a telling example of the philosophy of the Conservative Party and their public administration approach which favours wealthy people and major companies to the detriment of ordinary Canadians. During the few days after the Speech from the Throne I tried to find one single concrete initiative I might mention today to prove that sometimes-not often, but still-the Government shows some kind of interest in small- and medium-sized businesses. Not one did I find, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Not a one!


Alfonso Gagliano: Not one single concrete initiative during four years, Mr. Speaker, but I did remember something. Last summer -
As you see, Mr. Speaker, I woke those Conservatives over there. Look at them. They cannot bear to hear the truth, Mr. Speaker!
Last summer, the former Minister of State (Small Business), flanked by two Conservative Government big guns-not just anybody, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will be hitting all Canadians with his Budget on the 27, and the Minister of Regional Industrial Development (Mr. Andre)-to announce the entrepreneurship institute.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Tremblay) is waking up too. Earlier he said to his colleague: No, no, not those figures!
So Mr. Speaker, the occasion was so important those two big guns attended the press conference. And as I recall, we were given a beautiful entrepreneurship package on creative design. But once the creative design on the cover was turned over, there was nothing in that document to put small business back on their feet, give them expansion tools as he is now saying, and after almost a year he is still using that phrase.
But we noted a marginal aspect of that announcement, the announcement of that intrepreneurship centre to centralize research in that area, and during the press conference and in the press releases the Minister flanked by his two big guns told us it was done rapidly.
April 20, 1989

This has not been heard of since, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, if the idea was so good, if the Government really was serious about doing something for small business, they already would have done it. There was not one word in the Throne Speech. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister referred to it. Words, words, no action.
During the elections, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade promised $57 million to promote trade with the United States and the large regions in the world. Think of that! That minimal amount was spread over a number of years. So can you imagine what those $57 million spread over a number of years will produce?


Mr. Ricard:: It is better than nothing.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Hon. Member for Laval suggests this is better than nothing! Of course it is better than nothing! But there is something we should be clear about, Mr. Speaker. Is that one of those election commitments they can no longer honour?


An Hon. Member:: As always!


Alfonso Gagliano: Once the election is behind us, promises apparently are forgotten. If by any chance, by coincidence, the Government honour their commitment, and it would be a rare occurence indeed if that election commitment was honoured, how will that figure be distributed, Mr. Speaker? What will be the small and medium businesses' share of those $57 million? Small and medium businesses need tools, moneys to help their exports, not the large corporations, the Government's friends. They already are established on the markets. But looking at statistics, small businesses are not in exports at all.


An Hon. Member:: Right!


Alfonso Gagliano: So the $57 million is a drop of water in the ocean, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I really woke them up now. During their first term, the Conservative Government invested all their time and energies into the Canada U.S. Trade Agreement. But it's well known that agreement will be of benefit essentially to large corporations. There will be no problem for Northern Telecom nor ALCAN, who already are world scale corporations, established in different countries, Mr. Speaker. But not so for small businesses, because they will not have the means to export, and the Government will not supply the tools they need to do so.
Industry, Science and Technology
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how a company with less than 15 employees will be able to compete on these new markets which are supposed to be, from what the government says, a godsend and the perfect solution? We have already started to see what consolidation can do, and how some companies can destroy others. If that trend continues, Mr. Speaker, in just a few years, we will lose control over the mean which could help Canada to open up to the rest of the world, and also lose our ability to compete and stay competitive while keeping our Canadian identity. But because of the laisser-faire policy of this government, we will without a doubt be controlled by various interests and we will definitely become a colony again, just as it was in the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, small businesses create 85 per cent of all new jobs in Canada. The government should realize that by slowing down the economic growth of these small- and medium-sized businesses, the economic welfare of our country will suffer. We have often suggested to the government ways to really help small businesses without spending too much money. All we have to do is help them deal with temporary problems, often of a structural nature, which take up too much of their time and affect their productivity.


An Hon. Member:: Give us examples!


Alfonso Gagliano: My hon. friend would like me to give examples. Be patient and you will get them. Four years ago-I give you some, but you never used any. Therefore, wait patiently. I will suggest some to you, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that it is brought to the attention of his Minister.
If the Government tried to copy the American way, for instance, it could-These days, Mr. Speaker, the Gover-nemnt is always copying the American way; if indeed we must, why do we not amend our Small Business Loans Act to make it competitive or in harmony with the American legislation which has a treshold of $500,000 in guaranteed loans, while even today, our Small Business Loan Act provides for a treshold of $100,000.
In 1984, the Conservative Government broadened the definition of small businesses, but kept the same ceiling, $100 000 while lowering the guarantee to 85 per cent. For this reason, it is useless to our small businesses. That is one of the recommendations we have been making for quite a long time.

April 20, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Perhaps the Hon. Member sitting on the Government side should remember that the Official Opposition had a task force which travelled to throughout this country, made recommendations and published a report. We acted differently from the Government which carried out a consultation through out Canada, prepared a report and then put it away somewhere because it just could not bring itself to implement it. But we had a report printed and, if my hon. friend have not read it, I could provide them with a copy.
During the election campaign, I am sure they were aware for instance of our election platform on small and medium-size-businesses, our so-called RSSP. We are all aware that small businesses are faced with a major capitalization problem. They not only need loans, which they must pay back, but also capital stock. In fact, we are proposing a national REA. Take Quebec's case: It is the REA Program which has made it possible for a number of small and medium sized Quebec corporations to operate nation wide, with Quebecers providing the necessary capital.
For the past two years, we have been suggesting in the House a savings shares program for small businesses. It was part of our party platform. We have also suggested to the Government-during the debate on the tax reform, we took part in real battles in the House. The Government says it wants to help small businesses! Under the tax reform, the tax rate of small manufacturing businesses has increased from 10 to 12 percent. What do government members have to say about that? What did they do when we fought to get an amendment on that? They voted with the government for a 2 percent increase with tax rate of small businesses. Is this the way they stand up for small business! How can you talk about the Department of Industry, Science and Technology helping small business to compete with the Americans? Another vital sector, the manufacturing sector, has also been hit with a tax increase. That's a shame, Mr. Speaker.
Under this same tax reform, the government proposes a $500,000 capital gains exemption on sales of small business shares. We told the government that if they travelled around the country and talked to small businessmen, they would learn that shares are rarely sold in the small business sector. Capital assets are sold, not capital actions. Consequently, the Income Tax Act should be amended so that this $500,000 capital gains exemption apply to sales of capital assets of small business and not only of capital actions.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the government refused. That is another policy suggestion of ours that they only applied during the election campaign, during the byelection in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.
One morning, in fact, the Conservative Party incumbent received an application from a group in Lac Saint-Jean wishing to start a business incubator. No program existed, there was nothing. Of course, he got approval from the Government, money, everything. The Conservatives did not come out later to say, since there had been an application during the campaign in Lac Saint-Jean, why not make it a national policy? Why not? That should be one of the roles of the new department.
Consider that incubator policy that could help our young university graduates getting into the labour market, who do not have the financial means to start a business, who lack the capital to pay the rent, hire a secretary or buy the essential equipment nowadays, computers, Fax machines and copiers.
They could have common services, and those with human resources could create services which would make us competitive and innovative. That is how this new Department could innovate.
However, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary in this Department will speak a little louder on behalf of small business, because the present Minister-And I wonder why John Bullock, Chairman of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who fiercely defends small business once said: "The Department and the Minister of State for Small Businesses should both be abolished!"
Mr. Speaker, I wondered, but now I really understand what John Bullock meant. The judge put questions to the present Minister, but he did not even answer. That's right! For this Government, small business is no longer important. In fact, it is just something insignificant. It is the same great John Bullock who the other day withdrew from the Trade Alliance saying: "Finally I understand that this Government's philosophy is to listen only to the big guys and to forget about the little guys!"
Mr. Speaker, that is not just anyone! John Bullock is someone who has always defended the Government's policies over the last four years. And finally, he also saw the light. Now he is getting ready to attack, because- Imagine what is going to happen to small Canadian businesses when the new federal tax-I will have the last laugh, not Government Members when the new federal
April 20, 1989

sales tax is implemented. Imagine all those small businesses up to their necks in red tape, Mr. Speaker!
This Government keeps talking about its grand design. It thinks it can solve the world's problems with big words. If you listen to all the speeches, you realize that for the past week, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has defended her program, and that practically everyone has come out against her unemployment insurance reform.
And there too, Mr. Speaker, they talk about training. Just imagine, they are going to take the money, about $800 million, from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and we must not forget that one-third of Canada's labour force works for small businesses, so they are the ones that contribute to that Fund. Now the Government is going to take the money to pay for training in big businesses, because how can you provide training in a small business when there are only two, three, four or five employees, and when so many small businesses are really that small.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time has expired, and I am sorry about that because I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I have always been respectful of the Chair, and I will conclude, if I may, by saying that for four years, this Government never stopped helping the rich and big business, and always forgot the little people. And now, it is starting all over again: Plus ga change, plus c'estpareill Their second term is worse than the first, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, when I first rose in this House to question the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) over changes to native education policy two weeks ago, I was optimistic. I believed that the Minister was a reasonable person and in the interest of resolving the dispute he could agree to two simple things. First, there must be negotiations with the people affected by the policy. Second, the changes should not be implemented while negotiations are taking place. This seemed reasonable to me.
This Government claims to be willing to discuss its policies with anyone affected by them. Surely the same courtesy should be extended to native people as well. After all, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has entertained a steady parade of business groups and Conservative think-tanks during the preparation of his Budget. In fact, the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) recently defended meetings with the infamous Fraser Institute in the name of open consultation.
It seemed reasonable that the new policy dealing with Indian post-secondary education would be put on hold while the negotiations took place. If fair and open negotiations are to take place it seems that both sides must be willing to change their position and not come to the table with preconceived ideas, otherwise no true negotiation can take place.
Last week, I rose again to question the Minister on this matter. My optimism was dimmed somewhat but I still believed that the Minister was open to reason. I asked him to reconsider his refusal to begin negotiations, emphasizing the increasing danger to the health of the fasting Indian students. Incredibly, it is necessary to continue this debate. As we all know, there will be a debate on the subject over the next two days.
In good faith most of the fasting students called off their fast last weekend. In return, they expected the Minister to keep his promise to begin bilateral negotiations.
In this spirit of renewal they met with the Minister on Tuesday, along with representatives of Indian leadership. However, the Minister betrayed this spirit of renewal. He stated at that meeting that he would not impose a

April 20, 1989
Adjournment Debate
moratorium. On the one hand the Minister insists on good faith, his willingness to compromise and his openness to new ideas. Yet, on the other hand, he presents native people with a fait accompli. How can Indian people engage in meaningful negotiations if the policy is all ready to be implemented and already decided upon? By making up his mind before hearing the analysis offered by First Nations from across the country the Minister is not negotiating in good faith in this issue.
Earlier, the Minister refused to negotiate when the students were fasting, saying he would not be held hostage. Yet at the same time he wants to hold the negotiating process hostage to his own artificial deadlines. He makes up his mind and then asks for native contributions. The Minister has made a mockery of the consultative process that the Government represents as part of its strategy.
In response to the Minister's stubborn refusal to negotiate in good faith, several students have continued their fast. Melinda and Debbie Sault are on their twenty-ninth day of a hunger-strike. I spoke to their mother just a few days ago. I have spoken to other hunger-strikers in Saskatoon also. They are concerned with their weight loss. They are concerned with their health. They are concerned, as doctors are, that permanent damage to their health could occur as their bodies start digesting themselves.
This has been a life and death situation and remains one for these young people. Yet the Minister has turned a deaf ear to their plea. All they want is to negotiate and to delay implementation until negotiations are complete. Is this unreasonable? I think it is not. I do not think any person giving it a moment's thought would think it an unreasonable request. Yet the Minister has continued to deny them.
The support for Indian post-secondaiy education is a moral and historical obligation of the Canadian Government. Our country is built on an enormously valuable land-base provided by our First Nations. In return, natives were promised many things, including education. This year, 15,000 students attended post-secondary institutions. Yet native participation in post-secondary education in Canada is still far below the rate for non-Indian students. The program has grown over the past 10 years. Many students have graduated. Some 90 per cent of those graduates find jobs. Education is the key to native future, to the future of our first peoples. Yet the Government wants to cut off this future.
The decision of the Minister and the previous Minister to cap funding for native post-secondary education is both unjust and immoral. However, given that morality and justice are foreign to this Government, let me turn to an argument based on economics to which it seems to be much more in tune.
In the name of financial efficiency the Post-secondary Assistance Program has been kept. No longer will funds be provided to meet demand but individual bands will be required to allocate funds only to some students. Rationing of education will take place. The bands will be divided. The budget is limited, and that ends the thinking process of this Government.
If this is false economy, what is more expensive, four years of education or 40 years of welfare? Native people are mired in poverty and unemployment. Education is a proven way out. Educating native people today will save millions in welfare, penitentiary and health expenditures tomorrow. Where is the good business sense this Government claims to have? Where is the compassion the Government claims to have?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 1989, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axworthy) raised concerns about the bilateral process for reviewing Indian post-secondary policy. I would like to provide some background to this matter so that there might be a better understanding of the commitment by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) to a joint review of the policies with the Indian leaders, students and Department officials.
The new policy has major improvements over the previous program. These have resulted from consultation with over 500 Indian bands, with tribal councils, with students and educators. These are consultations which took place in 1988.
The program provides tuition assistance. It provides a new approach to the provision of living allowances. It provides adjustments to the rates of assistance, including special allowances for high rental areas. In addition, up to 5 per cent of the students will be eligible for scholarships of $3,500 for successful study in a range of programs supporting self-government and economic development. Also, the new policy includes an annual scholarship of up to $1,000 based on academic achievement.
April 20, 1989

The Government is committed to Indian post-secondary education. In the Minister's letter to the chiefs and councils on March 20, 1989, he indicated that the budget for the program rose from $4.2 million in 1975-76 to over $130 million in 1989-90. It is the Government's intention to continue to meet any future increased demand for post-secondary assistance through controlled budgetary increases.
The objective of the new policy, which is to apply to students enrolling this September, 1989, is to produce more graduates, and to encourage students to take programs of study which would assist Indian self-government and economic self-reliance.
The previous policy was deemed inadequate by the Assembly of First Nations in its review of education. Now, as a result of the new policy, Indian education authorities have increased control over their own administration of student assistance programs.
The Minister has indicated on many occasions that once the hunger-strike is over he is ready to undertake a bilateral process of discussion over the next few months to review the policy, to try to resolve any outstanding concerns and issues. These discussions would involve both the students and the Indian leaders. The Government is looking forward to a continuation of this very successful program.
AIR SAFETY-REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MINISTER/ REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to participate in the adjournment debate this evening. However, before I do, I want to make a couple of brief comments unrelated to the subject matter at hand.
First, if I could be a bit of a John Warren, I would like to let people know that immediately after the adjournment the Newfoundland election will be carried on the parliamentary channel, followed by the rerun of Question Period today. I say that just in case anybody is out there watching.
Second, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher), on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The Hon. Member was involved considerably in the Transport Committee in the previous Parlia-
Adjournment Debate
ment. I know that he will bring to his new position an understanding of the issues as well as with respect to how the Transport Committee works. I look forward to working with him.
I did something that I don't like to do, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that I haven't done in a previous Parliament. I requested that a Minister of the Crown be removed from office. I did it after great thought. I did it not because somebody else had already suggested the same thing time and time again. Too often in this House the immediate reaction is that if we don't like something that has happened, it is off with the head of the Minister.
I think what has been happening in Transport over the last five years is a lack of control. It has been getting worse. In our parliamentary system, it is the Minister who is ultimately responsible for what happens. Now the current Minister is a gentleman. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that. He is stuck with a real problem.
It started with the Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister of Transport, who followed the lead of the Liberals in deregulating air transportation and other modes. The Minister for International Trade did not appear to care about what was happening within the Ministry. Now a Minister has inherited a Ministry that is driving the ship. In a lot of ways, it is providing him with advice that is less than appropriate for what has happened in the industry.
Why do I say all this? When we were dealing with the White Paper Freedom To Move, when we were dealing with Bills C-18 and C-19, there were two favourite expressions. The Government, Minister after Minister, said that this new policy of leaving it to the market-place as opposed to public convenience and necessity would in no way endanger safety, that safety was the number one concern of the Government. In no way would they allow any of this to have a negative impact.
The Liberal Party, in their re-found, rebom-again opposition to deregulation-they were the ones who started it in Canada. There is no question about that. The Member for, I believe, Fort Garry was the one who, as Transport Minister initiated it. We were saying, "Listen, there are going to be some problems created. When it comes down to a decision between meeting the

April 20, 1989
Adjournment Debate
bankers' demands and being concerned about safety, even though you don't like to do it, and we were thinking of the small carriers on the air side, one would end up having to meet the bankers' demand of payment versus that extra $500 cost for de-icing a plane or replacing a wheel-bearing." Even though the specs said it was good for another 200 miles, the industry norm was replacing it then. It was held off. We suggested that those kinds of things were going to happen. We were pooh-poohed. We were told at the time that that is not going to happen. These companies are responsible. They would never jeopardize safety.
As we have seen in the United States where equipment is being used for longer and longer periods of time, we have major structural failures. We have one airplane that looks more like a convertible, another that loses a door, others that have cracked wings. All of these planes are in the 20-year age group ,which under a regulated environment in the United States, because of the stability of the industry, and stability means a decent bottom line, means that those planes would have been replaced at an appropriate time.
Instead, because of the nature of the competition, drastic reduction in fares in some cases, and we have seen in the States the number of airlines going out of business, that kind of competition has pushed the carriers to the limit. They have used their equipment longer than they should have. We are seeing the results of that.
In Canada, while we in the Opposition were being pooh-poohed when we warned that this could potentially lead to accidents or failures of equipment, deaths or injury, Transport Canada was saying to the Deputy Minister of Transport that resources were not available to deal properly with the deregulation of air in Canada. It said:
The shortage of trained, experienced inspection staff and other personnel has seriously impacted on the Directorate's ability to effectively perform its mandated tasks. The increase in the certification workload under economic regulatory reform, resulting from the need to service new and expanding air carriers, is affecting the Directorate's ability to effectively complete its ongoing inspection program, and thereby assure industry compliance with established legislation, regulation and standards.
It goes on and on. This is an internal audit branch document, a preliminary review of aviation regulations given to the Deputy Minister of Transport in June, 1987, the very same month that this House passed Bills C-18 and C-19.
It was October of that year when the first part of those Bills was proclaimed. This Government knew, at least at the bureaucratic level. I cannot believe the Deputy Minister did not advise the Minister at the time that this document existed and of the warnings that were out there. Yet the Government did nothing about this. It did not make sure there were air traffic controllers. It did not make sure there were inspectors, et cetera.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the response from the Parliamentary Secretary. He knows, I know and you know that we are going to continue this battle another time as we put in place the preventive measures necessary.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, let me say thank you to the Member opposite for his warm greetings at the beginning of his dissertation. I do look forward to continuing to work with him on the Transport Committee. I must say though in response to his question that I can only reiterate what has already been stated repeatedly both in this House and elsewhere. Canadian skies are safe. Events in recent months have served to undermine the confidence of Canadians in the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. In response to these concerns, on March 29, 1989, the Minister announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Estey to review the entire record of the Gander accident investigation with a view to advising the Minister as to whether any further investigation or inquiry is warranted. The Minister also announced the appointment of Mr. Justice Moshansky to conduct a judicial inquiry into the Dryden accident.
Earlier this week members of this House completed second reading of Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. This Bill is now before the Standing Committee on Transportation which will begin its deliberations next week. As a member of that committee, I would invite the Hon. Member to join with us in our efforts to provide Canadians with the best accident investigation body possible.
The Minister is prepared to consider any amendment which will serve to enhance transportation safety. Furthermore, while the Minister and his senior officials believe that the inspection resources of the Department of Transport are adequate to the present requirement, nevertheless the Minister intends to avail himself of the expertise of both industry and Government to assist him in ensuring that we have the right resources and that they are used in the right way in order to meet the changing needs of the future.
April 20, 1989

With specific reference to Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto, I would remind Hon. Members that the Ministers have recently completed extensive consultations which will lead to the development of a comprehensive plan for the whole of the southern Ontario airspace. An announcement will be made in due course.
I would like to emphasize that while we do have a shortage of air traffic controllers in Toronto, the traffic flow is always matched to the controllers' ability to handle safely the traffic. This means delays, not a decrease in the level of safety. I would also like to assure Members and the travelling public that every conceivable effort is being made to rectify the shortage situation.
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE-BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERY-PROCESSING OF FISH IN CANADA/LANDINGS OF SALMON AND HERRING.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Government has in fact reached a final decision as to its response to the GATT ruling of 1987 which found against the current regulations which have prevented the export of raw, pink and sockeye salmon and of herring from British Columbia. However, a number of issues remain. For example, in the new regulations which we are told are to be issued, there is the question of which specific provisions they will contain in terms of grading and inspection of the fish landed.
The concern has been raised that all that will occur is that raw fish will be landed at landing stations in British Columbia only to be purchased by American buyers and shipped directly to the United States.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), has given the House his assurance that the so-called "Murphy 2" proposal will be rejected by Canada. This proposal would have permitted Canadian fish caught by Canadian vessels to be shipped directly to U.S. ports where a Canadian official would be able to count the fish for the purpose of our conservation efforts. For Canada to even entertain such a proposal is totally unacceptable to British Columbia's fishermen and to the industry.
Adjournment Debate
On another point, what effect have the efforts of the U.S. Trade Representative, Carla Hills, had on influencing the Canadian Government? According to a statement from the U.S. Trade Representative's office on March 28, hearings will be conducted into which Canadian fish products will be targeted for further trade sanction actions.
The list which was released by the U.S. trade office lists 18 fish products. I will just mention those that are appropriate to the B.C. coast. They include salmon, whether it be canned, filletted, smoked or salted; turbot, filletted; other fish roe; other fish, filletted; other fish, minced or not. It would seem to include almost every commercial product processed in British Columbia.
In the communique issued by the Trade Representative's office, the public, particularly the U.S. industry, is being invited to propose additions to the list just in case anything was left out.
If the Government accepts the provision whereby fish would be landed in Canada without any processing whatsoever, only to be sold in the U.S. in the hope of avoiding U.S. trade action, I believe it is being extremely naive.
Section 304(e) of the American implementing legislation of the Free Trade Agreement states the following:
(1)	Within 30 days of the application by Canada of export controls on unprocessed fish under statutes exempted from the Agreement under Article 1203, or the application of landing requirements for fish caught in Canadian waters, the President shall take appropriate action to enforce United States rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that are retained in Article 1205 of the Agreement.
(2)	In enforcing the United States rights referred to in paragraph (1), the President has discretion to-
(A)	bring a challenge to the offending Canadian practices before
the GATT;
(B)	retaliate against such offending practices;
(C)	seek resolution directly with Canada;
(D)	refer the matter for dispute resolution to the Canada-United
States Trade Commission; or
(E)	take other action that the President considers appropriate to
enforce such United States rights.
Thus, within a month of any new landing requirements, regardless of how ineffective they might be, the Americans are more than likely to begin the process of trade action against them.
Fishermen, as represented by their unions, and our fishing industry have joined in expressing concern that Canada may give in to the United States pressure with respect to the West Coast industry. The fear is that our Government may do this in the hope that the United States will not take any similar steps with regard to the East Coast.

April 20, 1989
Adjournment Debate
If they win, the next time the Americans could demand that East Coast restrictions be brought into line with the GATT. Article 1205 of the trade agreement states: "The parties retain their rights and obligations under GATT and agreements negotiated under GATT". Thus the exempted provincial provisions could be open for challenge before GATT.
Given the precedent of giving in on the sea regulations, they are more likely than ever to fall by the wayside as well.
As Geoff Meggs, editor of The Fisherman in British Columbia, said: "If we have lost our right to process our own fish then how can we require that Canadians catch the fish in the first place?"
On March 21, 1988, the former Minister for International Trade told the House that salmon and herring caught off the Pacific Coast will be landed in Canada in order to ensure accurate catch reporting, inspection, grading and quality control. Will the Government today declare forthrightly and unequivocally that it intends to live up to those words?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite knows that this complaint which originated with the U.S. fishing interests in Alaska, was that Canadian processors were buying up substantial quantities of Alaskan salmon and herring while U.S. processors were denied any access to unprocessed salmon and herring from Canada. The U.S. took the issue to the GATT where a clear finding was made that the Canadian export restrictions on unprocessed Pacific pink and sockeye salmon and herring violated international trade rules.
In March, 1988, the Government announced that it would remove the GATT inconsistent export restrictions. The Government's announcement also stated that concurrent with this removal, new GATT-consistent regulations would be introduced to ensure that salmon and herring caught off the Pacific Coast will continue to be landed in Canada, to ensure that our well recognized fish conservation and management programs are not compromised.
The Government undertook an extensive consultative process in 1988, to seek industry's views respecting the development of a GATT-consistent landing requirement which would ensure maintenance of the conservation and management system related to Pacific salmon and herring. An industry advisory committee was created which, in September, 1988, submitted a series of recommendations for consideration.
The recommendations were subjected to an extensive review and analysis, including an evaluation by eminent independent GATT experts, to ascertain if the proposed landing requirement system would be GATT-consistent. The answer was yes, and the system, developed with the industry and the independent GATT experts, was discussed with the United States and is now part of the regulatory amendments.
Throughout this issue the Government has maintained the position that Canada will fulfil its GATT obligations while at the same time safeguarding the essential interests of the West Coast fishing industry through GATT-consistent regulations.
The regulatory package requiring the landing of both Pacific salmon and herring at shore based landing stations has been fully reviewed and supported by the industry and the Province of British Columbia. The Government has been moving on a fast track to implement the new regulations and it is expected that they will be completed before April 26, 1989.
With respect to the Pacific herring roe extraction activity, the Government is determined to ensure that this activity will continue to be carried out in Canada through measures that are GATT-consistent. Various possible measures are under consideration in consultation with the industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 21,1989