1989-05-24

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1989, five Salvadoran women, members of the Association of Salvadoran Women, and the Christian Committee for the Displaced were captured by the El Salvador Treasury Police and imprisoned at the women's penitentiary in San Salvador.
These women have been held without charge and, according to reports, brutally beaten and tortured. Their arbitrary detention seems the result of little more than community work on behalf of the Salvadoran people.
I refuse to accept the conventional wisdom that Canada can sit idly by while these human rights violations are taking place. I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to call on the Government of El Salvador to release these women immediately.
I also urge him to explore ways of promoting development projects in the region as a means of guaranteeing a better future for the Salvadoran people.



FILM INDUSTRY


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, the seventh International Symposium on Adapted Physical Activity will be held in West Berlin from June 21 to June
24, 1989. As part of this event is a world-class film contest related to the conference theme.
I am pleased to advise the House that two New Brunswick films, made entirely in New Brunswick by New Brunswickers, have been selected for final competition in this prestigious event.
One film entitled Yes, You Can: Profiles of Independence, demonstrates how three individuals with different disabilities overcame frustration and despair. Each character, in their own way, finds enjoyment and fulfilment in participating in physical activities.
The other film Let's Get Flexible portrays older adults enjoying a variety of physical activities and contains the comments of a noted geriatrician about the benefits for seniors who develop a physically active life-style. These two videos are both highly motivational for members of important groups of our society to enrich their lives further and to participate more fully in community activities.
Watch for these videos to be winners. Cassettes are available.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the Community Futures Program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy was established to assist communities in their efforts to identify, develop, and undertake measures to help individuals in communities adapt to changing economic circumstances and to plan the diversification of their economies.
With the proposed changes to unemployment insurance came the announcement that an additional $50 million would be added to the Community Futures budget next year.
Queens and Shelburne Counties of Nova Scotia are dangerously dependent upon the Atlantic fishery. Given the downturn in the Scotia Fundy groundfishery, these communities are highly in need of economic diversifica-

May 24, 1989
tion, precisely of the sort that is facilitated through a Community Futures Program.
Therefore, I again strongly urge the Government to recognize this legitimate need and to designate Shelburne and Queens Counties immediately for Community Future Programs.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this day in 1930, a Conservative Government created the CBC. Now, in 1989, a Conservative Government is wiping it out. Perhaps I should say slowly starving the CBC.
A $140 million cut-back over five years means that the goals of Canadianizing programs will be scrapped and local production, for example CBC Radio in the regions, will end.
As well, this Tory Government has stacked the CBC Board of Directors with hatchetmen like tobacco lobbyist Bill Neville who has kowtowed CBC management and appeared to be politically interfering in the management of the corporation. An example is the shameful way the CBC management forced Dale Goldhawk out of the presidency of ACTRA because ACTRA opposed the free trade deal.
The Tories have gambled that the CBC is one institution they can victimize with impunity. It is a political gamble they could and will lose. Meanwhile, the President of the CBC is to appear before a parliamentary committee this very afternoon-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



FILM INDUSTRY


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), I would like to congratulate two Canadians who have
distinguished themselves at the Cannes Festival: Denys Arcand, producer of Jesus de Montreal, for winning the Jury Prize and the Ecumenical Prize, and Gilles Carle, producer of the short film on the NFB's 50 years, for winning an honorary Golden Palm for a short film.
These prizes are an honour for all those who work in this country's film industry. The excellence they have shown will no doubt stimulate our young film-makers and open doors for them internationally.
I take this opportunity to say how proud all Canadians are of these successes. We are honoured by their creativity, which has won us recognition as a country where quality and excellence are a major concern.
Again, my heartiest congratulations to Denys Arcand and Gilles Carle!



INDIAN AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is at the Dakar Summit to present a resolution on human rights. I want to tell the House how the Government deals with human rights here in Canada. I want the Members of this House to know how the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs spends public money.
Indian and Northern Affairs is paying a consultant $800 a day to negotiate an agreement in northern Quebec. That person has in turn hired a PR company to the tune of $246,000 to work out a strategy for him to work with the Cree and Inuit. This is a cynical strategy. What a waste of public money.
Now we know how negotiations break down with groups like the Lubicon and how other outstanding claims break down. There is no will. The Government does not care about resolving native issues when it perceives public support is not there.
The Government can hardly teach other countries about human rights. It is a disgrace for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to present options to Cabinet regarding native land claims based on a Decima poll, but then the Prime Minister does it, so why not?
May 24, 1989



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of Commons that yesterday marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident. In 1914, 376 East Indians, most of whom were Sikhs, sailed to Canada on a freighter named the Komagata Maru. When they arrived they were not allowed ashore and after a two-month wait in the harbour all but 22 were forced to return. Upon their return to India police opened fire killing 18 and wounding 25. The rest were interned in the Punjab.
Canada's reaction stemmed from racism, ignorance and fear. Today, Canadians place a high priority on tolerance, compassion, and freedom for all people of the world. Cultural and racial diversity is now entrenched in our Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
We are eager to help strengthen the bonds of friendship between our East Indian community and all sectors of our society. We have much to learn from each other and much to give each other as we strive in unison to champion human rights in Canada and around the world.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the election of the Bhutto Government in Pakistan held high hopes for members of the Canadian Ahmadiyya Muslim community since their relatives and brethren in Pakistan had been severely persecuted for practising their religious faith by the previous regime.
However, not only has the persecution continued with a vengeance, but Ahmadiyya Canadians have learned that a new and extensive purge will be launched on or around May 25.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that countries which respect basic human rights should represent a benchmark for Canada's association with them. Yet, today, thousands of Canadian families have been directly affected by the violation of human rights against the Ahmadis without any condemnation by the Canadian Government.
I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to establish direct contact with his counterpart in Pakistan and voice Canada's displeasure with the treatment of Ahmadis to ensure that Pakistan's signature on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is fully respected and that bloodshed is avoided.
Canada can have an important role in mobilizing international pressure to stop this atrocity, and I ask our Government to capitalize fully on our position with the international community.
The Government has long known about the abuse against Ahmadis in Pakistan. It is high time that it takes action and does not use rhetoric.



TREASURY


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, in the past 20 years spending on federal programs has increased by well over 100 per cent. The number of interest groups wanting even more money has increased proportionately. We have created a system of hand-outs that encourage interest groups to look to the Government as an unending source of money. That mindset must be changed.
Canadians, in general, recognize the need for the Government to reduce its spending. They understand that we cannot continue to spend over $100 billion on programs that cater to every wish.
This country was built by people who earned their way in life, and it is time to regenerate that spirit and put the national interest ahead of special interest.



CONSEQUENCES OF GRISE AFFAIR

Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for this House to learn that one of its Members has been found guilty of criminal acts. Canadians and Quebecers expect their Members of Parliament to be fair, honest and open. They want us to show leadership. When one of us, of whatever party, is found

Oral Questions
guilty of such a serious offence as fraud and breach of trust, the House must act quickly to restore public confidence.
I sincerely hope that the Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) will do his duty and announce to you, Mr. Speaker, that he will not sit in the House and declare the seat for Chambly vacant. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will then announce as soon as possible a date for a by-election in Chambly.
The residents of Chambly deserve a representative worthy of the name. The House must restore public confidence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Timer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In this House for the last four weeks we have witnessed a cover-up of the truth using the police as a shield. There has been a conspiracy of silence, a conspiracy of deception involving the Prime Minister and four senior members of his Government.
The Minister of Finance has told Canadians repeatedly that there was only a single leak of his Budget. We now know that the Minister of Finance knew at least by 1.40 p.m. on April 27, before Question Period that day in the House, before his Budget speech in the House that afternoon, that Mutual Life Assurance Company had copies of the Budget in Brief both in Ottawa and at its head office. An $11 billion insurance company had the Budget for 48 hours before the budget address.


Mr. Peterson:: Shame!


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: The Minister of Finance said nothing of that to the people of Canada or to the House of Commons. That was not an allegation. That was a fact. That is a fact.
Why didn't the Minister of Finance tell Canadians the truth on April 27? Why didn't the Minister of Finance in the circumstances we now know withdraw his Budget?
Why did this supposed man of integrity mislead the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I do want to say to Hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is a very important matter. As always, the Chair will be very careful in ensuring that the Opposition not only has a right to make inquiries but does its duty and does inquire. I do want all Hon. Members in this exchange and whatever exchanges may take place for the rest of Question Period to be extremely careful in the language that is used.
As I say, I am here to make sure that matters of importance are raised in Question Period, and I will ensure that they will be fully raised and an opportunity will be given to ask questions and to give answers. However, I do ask for the co-operation of Hon. Members not to stray beyond that line because we have to maintain order.


Mr.   Timer@Vancouver Quadra: I, of course, will stay within the parameters of the discretion and your authority in this House, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians are asking: Why didn't this Minister withdraw his Budget, and they are asking: Who will ever trust this Minister of Finance again in this country? Why didn't he withdraw his Budget and why on April 27 didn't he tell Canadians the truth?


Mr. Riis:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: This is an outrage to have the Solicitor General.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the Solicitor General should inform the House of all the details of an investigation being conducted by the RCMP, I must say I disagree Most emphatically with this approach. The Government is anxious not to undermine the ability of the RCMP, an honourable police force, to shed light on this case, and I believe it would be inconsistent to interfere in a police investigation. How would Canadians react if, when they had to testify in court, their testimony was on the floor of the House the
May 24, 1989

znext day? Canadians don't want that. We do not in any way want to compromise any legal action that might be taken as a result of this inquiry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: I can inform the Solicitor General that this is not a police matter but a matter for Parliament. We are talking about the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. John N. Tiimer (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government is senior ministers have deceived Canadians by what they said and by what they did not say. One hour after the office of the Minister of Finance was informed by the President of Mutual Life of Canada that the company had had a copy of the Budget in Brief for over two days, the Prime Minister said in the House during Question Period, and I quote:
Mr. French of Global Television who was the first person who
received the call from the individual who took the documents.
This statement by the Prime Minister is manifestly false. Mutual Life of Canada had the Budget well before Global Television did. I therefore have the following question for the Minister of Finance: Did the Prime Minister know he was making a false statement? Did the Minister of Finance tell the Prime Minister that he made a false statement? Did the Minister of Finance try to correct the Prime Minister's false statement? And why did the Minister of Finance remain silent for four weeks? Why did he hide the truth, the whole truth, from Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Solicitor General, has made it very, very clear, that until matters are part of the public domain, as was the case on Wednesday evening when the Global Television Network displayed a document, it is quite inappropriate for Ministers to comment on matters which might be the subject of a police investigation.
Such comment would undermine the investigation, and the Right Hon. Member would be the first to criticize us, as he has in the past, if that type of information were made known by Ministers of the Crown while a police investigation was under way. The
Oral Questions
Right Hon. Member knows that as a former Solicitor General and as a former Minister of Justice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a Solicitor General has the duty to protect an accused but no duty to protect a Minister who is not responsible to the House of Commons.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION FROM MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at 2:30 p.m. on April 27, the Minister of Finance said, "The document was released to Mr. Small of Global Television". At that time, he already knew that the document had been released to the Mutual Life Assurance Company, but he did not say a word to the House of Commons or to the people of Canada.
On May 18, when the Deputy Prime Minister referred to "an unnamed company somewhere in Canada," the Government had already known the name of the company for 22 days. Yesterday, when the Minister of Finance said "I have been as precise as I possibly can be," he had known for 27 days about the Mutual Life Assurance leak and he still did not admit the truth or tell the people of Canada.
Why did the Minister of Finance say yesterday in the House of Commons that "the first leak was a fact"? What did he mean by first since he claimed there was only one? What did he mean yesterday when he spoke in the House of Commons in reply to me of "one leak, one matter, one incident" when he knew that both Global Television and the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada had that information?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is taking that comment out of context. I was referring precisely to what I said when I rose in this House under a question of privilege at eleven o'clock on the morning of April 27. At that time, all I knew was the one matter, the Global matter, which was the subject of the Global Television news report the night before.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to the difference between an allegation and a fact. We knew that it was a fact that Global Television had the document. It was there on television.


John Napier Turner: The president of the insurance company told you he had a document. That is a fact too.

May 24, 1989
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Until the president of the Mutual Life comes public and acknowledges in precise terms-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Until the president of the Mutual Life states those facts in public, I as a Minister cannot acknowledge the existence of them because those matters are the subject of an RCMP investigation.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns the Budget leak. On April 24, here in Ottawa, the Budget was given to a Robert McFarlane by an acquaintance in a bar in the east end. On the 25th the Budget was circulated in the office of Mutual Life in Ottawa, photocopied and faxed to Kitchener, and photocopied and faxed again to Toronto. On the 26th it was photocopied at the place of work of Robert McFarlane at Time Communications in Ottawa.
Given that on the 26th, there were no less than five copies of the Budget and that some people had access to the documents three days before the Budget was presented in the House of Commons, why did the Minister present his Budget knowing those facts? Why did he insist as late as yesterday that there was one Budget leak when he knew better?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on April 26, the Wednesday evening, we knew for a fact that there was a document shown on Global Television.
As soon as we had seen that document and knew that it was a copy of the Budget in Brief, we took immediate action. We advised the RCMP and asked the RCMP to initiate an investigation. We then contacted the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and asked if we could come back to the House of Commons so that I could present my Budget to the House of Commons. That request was turned down by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Because this information was in the public domain, we thought it was essential that we get the full budgetary information into the public
domain as quickly as possible. We went to the Press Gallery and provided the media with the full documentation so that that documentation was in the public domain.
On Thursday at five o'clock when according to a House order I was to rise to present my budget speech, the budget speech was already presented. It was presented the night before at 10.30. On Thursday, I tabled the documents themselves and made a brief covering statement on that, and I initiated the parliamentary process in order to ensure that we have a Ways and Means motion and the borrowing authority tabled and initiated in the House of Commons.


BUDGET LEAK-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on April 24, the Minister's Budget was lying around in an east-end Ottawa bar. The Minister was aware of this as early as the morning of April 27. Why does the Minister of Finance insist today that no one profited in advance from budget information? Why is the Minister hiding highly important information from this House? Why has he neglected to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that I knew of the Mutual information on the morning of the 27th. That is not true. That is simply not true.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That information was made known to my office at 1.30-1.45 on April 27, the Thursday, and I became aware of it shortly after that. As soon as we found out the information, my officials advised the RCMP to ensure that in their investigation of the Global incident they were also investigating this as well.


QUESTION AS TO NUMBER OF INCIDENTS KNOWN OF BY AFTERNOON OF APRIL 27
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has finally got around to acknowledging that when he got up to answer the questions in the House at 2.30 on the 27th, I asked the Minister about claims of further Budget leaks. The Minister has just admitted
May 24, 1989

that by the time he answered those questions he knew there was an additional leak, and I want to-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -ask him, since I asked him specifically about claims that there were additional Budget leaks and he replied in the singular, referring once again to a criminal act, why he did not use that occasion, immediately after, to say what had been brought to his attention by the president of a large insurance company? Why did he not tell the truth to the people of Canada right then?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I will repeat the answer. What I said to the Hon. Member at that time is:
If the Hon. Member has any information to the effect that
someone has used any information for gain, let him inform the
RCMP so that a proper investigation can be done.
That is precisely what my office did when we found out this information that has become public knowledge yesterday. We made that information directly known to the RCMP so they could proceed with their investigation.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a shameful performance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was doing my job in a parliamentary democracy by asking questions. I asked the Minister, and he was the one who had the information, and it is the Minister, not me, who should have given the House of Commons that information.
The Minister is doing again today what he did on the 27th. He is doing exactly the same today as he did then. Instead of answering a direct question, he imputes the motives of a democratically elected parliamentary opposition. I want to ask him this: since he knew then and had been informed-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa will put his question.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: -I would like the Minister to answer the question instead of making an accusation. Since he knew after 1.30 p.m., before he answered my question in the House on the 27th, of a claim by the head of one of the largest insurance companies in Canada that he had a copy of a document, Budget in Brief, which had been revealed the night before on television, since he had been told that-not a mere allegation but a substantial claim by a man who has reputation-why did the Minister not get up in the House and reply, yes, we have further information, yes, indeed, we may be having it checked out by the RCMP, but I am doing my job as a Minister of the Crown and I am publicly saying that it has been revealed and I accept responsibility for it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First, let me caution the Hon. Member not to jump to conclusions. I found out from my staff later that day. But let me also caution the Hon. Member. Is he saying to us that we should provide information to the public as to what is going on in an RCMP investigation? Is he saying that we should undermine the investigation that is under way? Is he saying that we should provide details that would inhibit the ability of the RCMP to discuss this with witnesses? These are the questions that I think the Hon. Member should carefully consider before he suggests that we did the wrong thing by immediately making that information known to the RCMP, as I believe was the right thing to do. We did exactly what we should be doing. Also, I believe we did exactly the right thing by not making public reference to this and thereby undermining the work of the RCMP.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister has turned it around with a series of questions. I simply say, the Minister has an obligation to do honestly and with integrity the job that he was elected to do. That is what the Minister has an obligation to do.


REQUEST AS TO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General of Canada has already commented on the progress of the RCMP investigation of this case. When will it be the right time for the Government to mention this investigation? The Government mentions the investigation but, when it does not suit it, it wants to ignore the truth.

May 24, 1989
Oral Questions

That is the problem, and I want to simply ask the Minister this. He still has not answered the question. Will he tell us precisely when he learned of the second leak, and tell us why he did not come into the House and tell the House and the people of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we found out in my office this information, we made that known to the RCMP immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Within less than an hour. I found out shortly after that. I cannot be precise on the time, but it was shortly after that. Now, the point I want to make very clear to the Hon. Member is that there are responsibilities that we as Ministers have in the House of Commons, and that is that when there is an investigation under way, we do not comment on it. That is a longstanding tradition in the House of Commons and it is based on very practical reasons. Information that is made known to the public through the House of Commons can undermine the investigations of the RCMP, can prejudice the trial that may subsequently take place.


An Hon. Member:: You are hiding behind the RCMP.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says I am hiding behind the RCMP.
As soon as Mutual Life made that information available yesterday, I had been quite prepared to talk about those aspects of it. But before they make that information available, that is simply the subject of the RCMP investigation and Ministers are constrained from commenting on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATION OF MINISTER MISLEADING THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Finance, and in asking it I want to say to him, Ministers have responsibilities but no Minister has the responsibility to mislead this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been a Member for more years than most of us in this Chamber. He knows that unless it is clear that the allegation is intentionally misleading the House, then it is not for the
Chair to intervene. But the Hon. Member knows also that the way these comments can be put can get very close to becoming unparliamentary, and then disorder follows. So I would ask the Hon. Member to be careful.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I take your admonition very seriously, and that is why, in asking my question, I will start out by saying that no Minister has a responsibility to mislead the House, even if it is not intentional.
I want to ask the Minister about what he said in this House, not on April 27 but yesterday. Yesterday, during Question Period the Minister stated:
I have read each and every statement that I made on this matter in the House. I stand by each one of those statements, including the statement that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to a minute ago where I referred to one matter, one leak, one incident here. I stand by that. There is no way that I have misled this House.
I ask the Minister: why did he say something to the House yesterday that he knew was untrue? Surely that is not part of his responsibilities.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has not given me the precise area that I made that statement.
I believe, if the Hon. Member recalls, the context of that statement was a statement of privilege that I made at 11 o'clock. At that time I was aware of one matter.


Mrs. Finestone:: Yesterday?


Mr. Milliken:: We are talking about yesterday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When I made that statement of privilege in the House of Commons on April 27, I was a aware of one incident, the Global incident. That is what I referred to in my statement in the House at 11 o'clock. I did not become aware of the Mutual Life incident until later on in that day.


CLARIFICATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENTS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister about what he said in the House during Question Period yesterday. As reported in Hansard at page 2050, I repeat what the Minister said:
I have read each and every statement that I made on this matter in the House. I stand by each one of those statements, including the statement that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to
May 24, 1989

a minute ago where I referred to one matter, one leak, one incident here. I stand by that. There is noway that I have misled this House.
The Minister of Finance was clearly not talking about only his statement of privilege on April 27, he was talking about each and everything he said in the House over the past three weeks, including the answers he gave in the House yesterday.
I again ask the Minister, why did he not rise in the House and tell us what he knew? Why did he not tell the House and the Canadian people the truth about what he knew about the Mutual Life leak?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the original question from the Hon. Member for Shefford. As he said, it was quite simple. He stated: "When he" that is me "rose in the House on Thursday, April 27, was the Minister of Finance aware of the possibility of a second leak, yes or no?"
When I rose in the House on April 27, that was at 11 o'clock in the morning, the answer to that question is very simple and precise: No.


ALLEGATION OF COVER-UP
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Ministerial accountability is the essence of our parliamentary system. The Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice have a fiduciary obligation to Canadians, but also to this Parliament, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I challenge the Minister of Finance to stand in his place and deny that he did not have information from Mutual Life at 1.40 in the afternoon of April 27, 1989, and refused to inform Parliament because he, as well as the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister, were participating willingly in a cover-up to mislead Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


ALLEGATION THAT PRIME MINISTER'S COMMITMENT IGNORED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When the Minister's office received a call from Jack Master-man, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Oral Questions
Mutual Life of Canada, he received a call from the President of one of the largest insurance companies in the country with assets of $11 billion.
Can the Minister confirm to the House that he knew of Mr. Masterman's phone call before he rose to read his Budget Speech at 5.40 in the afternoon? Since he did know, and I certainly assume he did know, why did he not tell the House at that time what had happened in light of the fact that the Prime Minister had made a commitment in Question Period that "the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him he will report to the House immediately-". In light of the commitment from the Prime Minister to report immediately any new information, why did the Minister of Finance not tell us at 5.40 when he read his Budget Speech that he had new information?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to what was said in this House. I can refer the Hon. Member to what I said in the House on April 27, as reported on page 1032 of Hansard:
The investigation is underway, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them.
As I said many times in this House, the RCMP is conducting a full scale investigation and I believe that we should wait for the conclusions of this investigation before inferring anything about its results.


INFORMATION TO BE MADE PUBLIC AFTER COMPLETION OF RCMP INQUIRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With respect, by 5.40 in the afternoon when the Budget was read, they had the facts. This was also in the public domain, because a company with 3,000 employees is certainly a company that has something in the public domain when it has those facts.
In light of the commitment made by the Prime Minister-not the Solicitor General-that as soon as new facts came to the attention of the Government they would be reported immediately to the House, I want to ask the Minister of Finance why did he not tell the people of Canada and Members of Parliament that the President of Mutual Life of Canada had called his office and stated they had access to Budget documents. Why

May 24, 1989
Oral Questions
did he not tell the House? If the Minister does not tell the House now why he did not do that, he should resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat the answer that my colleague has just given. However, it states very clearly that that information will be made public after the RCMP investigation. The investigation is still ongoing.
I want to remind my hon. colleague that on Wednesday night, after this information became known, we took steps immediately, as his Leader knows, to get that information into the public domain as quickly as possible. We were refused access to the House of Commons, so we made that information available through the media on Wednesday evening. It was not material to the process on Thursday. On Thursday, we were simply tabling the documents in the House of a Budget that had been made public about 20 hours before. It was important for us to get that information tabled in the House, simply to initiate the parliamentary process.


BUDGET CANCELLATION SUGGESTED APPROPRIATE COURSE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. A reading of the statement put out yesterday by Mutual Life of Canada makes it clear that when Mutual Life reported the leak to the Minister's office on the afternoon of the 27th, it was not in a position to tell the Minister's staff, or the Minister, that no profiteering had occurred.
With that information, and not knowing that no profiteering had occurred, how could the Minister proceed to introduce his Budget in the House that night?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just mentioned a very important point. In fact, this is why last week I felt I had to remind the House, as the RCMP Commissioner had informed me, that so far we had no evidence that people in Canada had been able to profit from information derived from a Budget document. And I think that is what Canadians need to know. My point is that this Government has acted responsibly by immediately asking the RCMP to investigate all the circumstances around this case, and especially any possibility that people may have tried to
profit from privileged information in the Budget, Mr. Speaker.


RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about a police investigation or the result that investigation will lead to, I am asking about the responsibility of the Minister of Finance who had to decide that afternoon whether to proceed to bring his Budget before the House of Commons. He knew that it had been leaked to a large financial institution. He did not know whether there had been any profiteering at that point. How could he proceed with the Budget, knowing that it was in the hands of one of the largest insurance companies in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that the Budget was made public the night before and that information was in the public domain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That information was in the public domain for some 20 hours prior to my standing up at 5.40 on Thursday afternoon. That information that was released in the Budget statement on Wednesday night-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This was liiesday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -was the subject of trading activity all day Thursday. It would have been quite inappropriate, quite disruptive to the financial markets if at that stage we would have withdrawn the Budget.


EXTERNAL TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Not long ago, Canada Customs laid several charges of fraud against textile importers in this country, in connection with merchandise manufactured in Korea, shipped to front companies in Japan and then transshipped to Canada as merchandise of Japanese origin, thus violating our bilateral agreements and Section 17 of the Export and Import Permits Act. Could the Minister reassure Canadian textile manufacturers and workers
May 24, 1989

and inform the House that the Government is taking appropriate steps to monitor and detect this type of fraud?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, officials at External Affairs and Revenue Canada Customs have been investigating allegations that Korean exporters have been circumventing our bilateral textile agreement with Korea through the trans-shipment of polyester fabric through Japan. There has been an investigation in the offices of certain importers in Montreal and Toronto. Charges have been laid against two importers in Toronto. Charges against a number of other companies are anticipated.
We have asked the co-operation of the Korean and Japanese Governments in the investigation. We are requesting consultations with Korea under the provisions of the Canada-Korea Textile Agreement to seek compensation for the trans-shipment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sudbury.


THE BUDGET
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, we were advised that Mutual Life had a copy of the Budget in Brief on April 25.


Mr. Lewis:: You were advised?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why didn't you tell us?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Why didn't you tell us?


Diane Marleau: The Hon. Minister of Finance has an extensive background in financial and business matters on Bay Street. Anyone with that kind of knowledge knows how quickly any detail is used and turned into profits.
With the advent of fax machines, photocopies can go around the world within an hour.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Diane Marleau: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does he still believe that no one profited from the leak of this Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand precisely the Hon. Member's question. If she is saying that she had information-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is not the case. From what the Hon. Member says, I understand that is not what she meant to say. I can only respond to her question by referring to the investigations that the RCMP have carried out. My colleague, the Solicitor General, has said that to date there has been no indication of profiteering. I believe it is the Ontario Securities Commission and two or three other securities Commissions that have said they have found no indication of profiteering to date. But that investigation continues. When it is completed I will be able to provide the Hon. Member with a full answer.


CONFIDENCE IN THE BUDGET QUESTIONED
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, there is no way at this time that anyone can make that kind of statement in all honesty.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


Diane Marleau: What we have here is Wilsongate. How will the Government restore confidence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Dick:: You blew it.


Mr. Beatty:: Send in the first team next time.


An Hon. Member:: Another rat.
Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put her question.


Diane Marleau: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. How will the Government restore confidence in the Budget? Will you ask for the resignation of the Hon. Minister of Finance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have seen in the financial

May 24, 1989
Oral Questions
markets over the last three or four weeks is a very good indication of the confidence that there has been in this particular Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard is yelling his support for this Budget because he-


Mr. Martin:: Support? I said it is a terrible Budget.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He is absolutely sure it is the right thing for this country-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.


RESIGNATION OF FINANCE MINISTER URGED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we know for sure is that the Finance Minister is not doing the right thing by stonewalling against these inquiries.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When he stood on April 27 at 11 o'clock, he said that he was not aware of the fact that Mutual Life of Canada had information regarding the Budget some days in advance. He has also said that by 2.30 in Question Period, although he had been alerted, it was only an allegation.
By the time he rose to deliver his Budget at 5.40 in the afternoon of April 27, was he aware then? Had he checked out the allegations to ensure that in fact there had been a Budget leak? Why did he not do the right thing at that time, announce it to the House of Commons and announce his resignation at the same time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Hon. Member's question. Could he repeat it, please?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will try again. At eleven o'clock when the Minister of Finance rose in his place, he indicated that he was not aware there had been a second leak. By 2.30 in the afternoon he also indicated that he was aware of allegations that there had been a second leak-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: By 5.40 in the afternoon, when the Minister rose in his place to present the Budget, knowing that his office had been informed, had he chased down these allegations and confirmed that there in fact had been a
leak and that the Budget was in the hands of Mutual Life of Canada for at least two or three days? Why at that time did he not do the right thing, announce there had been at least two leaks, and also do the honourable thing and offer his resignation to the Prime Minister of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am repeating my answers. At 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. the night before, Wednesday, the Budget was made public. The Budget was in the public domain. It had been delivered. The full package of information had been distributed to Members of this House. The full package had been distributed to the media. It was the subject of activity in the financial markets for the whole of Thursday.
Let me go back to what the Hon. Member said. He said that we were stonewalling. He said because we are not commenting on investigations that are under way at the RCMP we are stonewalling. If we were to comment on this the same Member would be up on his feet saying that we were interfering with justice, interfering with the course of the investigation. He would be saying that we were prejudicing the successful outcome of the investigation and a successful trial if that were to follow.


TIMING OF KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, now that this whole matter of the second leak has become public my question is very simple. When was the Minister of Finance aware that there had been a second leak? Why at that time did he not at least announce that fact to the House of Commons rather than wait for the media to release the information?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are going over ground that we already covered earlier in Question Period. I indicated that my office was made aware of this some time around 1.30 or 1.45 on Thursday, April 27. They immediately contacted the RCMP and ensured that that new information was the subject of the investigation that had already commenced around 7 or 7.30 the night before. Shortly after, I was made aware of this myself and the Government became aware of it.
The reasons why there have been no comment on this is because-


May 24, 1989

Mr. T\irner (Vancouver Quadra): It is a cover-up.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition says that it is a cover-up.


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When he was the
Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, I am sure that he would be advising members of his Cabinet that under no circumstances should they be commenting on the details of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.
I have notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services.


PRIVILEGE
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of yourself and of the House that statements made by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Taylor) yesterday, as reported at page 2039 of Hansard under Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31, are inaccurate and wrong. If he would refer to the statement which I made in committee, which was that we only use Canadian owned or controlled agencies and some of the 25 largest agencies-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Minister. However, that is a question of debate. I know that the Hon. Minister will try to find some other means by which he can respond to the statement of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to a matter within the
Oral Questions
jurisdiction of the Deputy Prime Minister. If he might be recalled to the House, I will just hold on until he is here.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. Perhaps he could just wait for one moment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to leave the House despite the fact that I indicated that this is a matter within his jurisdiction. However, perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) might respond.
In view of the events of yesterday concerning the Member of Parliament for Chambly, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, on a point of order, whether he has a statement to make to the House about tabling a motion to expel the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) from this House in view of the wrongdoing to which he has pleaded guilty. Will he do that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour knows that there is-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that is a point of order. The Hon. Member has asked the Government a question. The Government may or may not want to respond at this time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is a question for Question Period.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the Hon. Member for Burnaby that that is not a point of order at this time.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, perhaps we ought to wait for Routine Proceedings, until we get to Motions, with the expectation that the Government will at least have something to say when we come to that point in terms of what it plans to do with respect to this very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Both the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the Hon. Member for Kamloops have made their positions clear. I think their area of concern is clear to the House. I think that there will be an appropriate place to raise it in the House.

May 24, 1989
Railway Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Railway Act (delimiting telephone areas).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand), who has agreed to second my Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Governor in Council to instruct the CRTC to harmonize telephone service charges within a given socio-economic region. I think it is important that the Government should have the appropriate instruments to correct certain inequities in municipalities where callers are charged long distance rates for calls within the same region.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MEMBER FOR CHAMBLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could seek some guidance from my hon. friend, the Government House Leader. He is aware of course of how serious the matter is in terms of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise). I think we are all aware of course of the Fred Rose case back in 1947 when the House of Commons was asked to go through a procedure
by which a motion was put before the House. This is not necessarily a government initiative but a motion of the House. The House voted on that motion and Mr. Fred Rose was no longer a Member of Parliament.
I am sure we are all dismayed at the actions of one of our colleagues. I would simply ask for guidance from my hon. friend, the Government House Leader, with respect to what steps he is planning. Is it something that the House Leaders should get together on to draft a motion that is acceptable to all sides of the House? I simply ask for guidance from the Government House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I point out that the Chair is quite aware of what the Hon. Member is trying to do. However, the Hon. Member has put it in the form of a request for a response from the Government. Strictly and procedurally I am not so sure that the Government needs to respond at this time. However, the Hon. Minister of Justice was rising.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it might clear the air if I did comment, while I agree with you that I do not think it is appropriate at this time. My hon. friend who first raised the matter is a colleague at the Bar. He will know that while the individual in question has pleaded guilty and been sentenced, that there is an appeal period for the sentence. I believe in this case that it is 30 days. I think it would be inappropriate for the Government to consider moving in haste, since the matter just took place yesterday. We should allow the due process of the law to be completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby on the same point.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Government House Leader has indicated, in response to my initial question on this point, that the Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) should be accorded a period for appeal, presumably, before he takes any action. I want to make two points.
First, the motion to expel Fred Rose in 1947 was put before the House in the name of the then Prime Minister, Mackenzie King. I would hope this Government would show the same kind of leadership in these circumstances.
May 24, 1989

Second, I want to ask-
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair is in, and I address these remarks to all Hon. Members, is that this is not the place to debate whether or not the Government ought to do what some Government did in the past.
I have certainly given every latitude to the Hon. Member for Kamloops to put a request to the Government on this important matter. The Government has responded that at the moment the Government, for whatever reasons, does not want to move. The Hon. Minister of Justice has cited appeal times.
It does not seem to me appropriate that we now have an argument, a debate in the Chamber, on whether or not that response is appropriate, given some other responses. It will not surprise Hon. Members to know that the Chair and the Table have looked at this matter with very great deliberation over the last 24 hours, and there may well be an appropriate time to discuss it. I hope that the Chair will be able to be of assistance to all Parties.
However, at the moment I do not think it is appropriate to get into a debate over what the Government would want to do at this particular time. The Minister of Justice has responded. The Government, the Official Opposition, and the New Democratic Party may well want to have some discussions and then come in, at which time that might be of assistance to the Speaker, but at the moment I think I am bound by the rules.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly quite prepared to join my fellow colleagues as House Leaders and pursue this matter further.
I am not a lawyer. Again I simply want to seek some clarification. The Hon. Member, as I understand it, pleaded guilty and has actually served his sentence. As a non-lawyer, does that still encourage the Government to set the matter aside in case he is going to appeal having already served his sentence? It seems to be an odd sort of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops may not be a lawyer, but he is pleading his case with very great effectiveness. I think that is continuing the same point and I think we should move on.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Thursday, May 11, be concurred in.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has moved a debatable motion, and I wish to debate the matter.
As a past chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware of the valuable work that the Public Accounts Committee does. I know that my hon. friend will function in the same tradition as all Members who have held that position in making every effort to see that the report of the Auditor General on an annual basis-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Minister of Justice has called for debate. It is a debatable motion. Ordinarily, under the strict rules of the House, the Hon. Member for Renfrew, having put his motion, would not be entitled to speak. However, it might be that the Hon. Minister of Justice might accept some comment from the Hon. Member for Renfrew, due to the fact that he has called for a debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice rose because he has chaired this Public Accounts Committee in the past when he sat in opposition. I will give him that recognition, because I think he did a bit of wandering around and investigation with that committee and tried to bring out the government expenditures and any inequities, inaccuracies or inefficiencies thereof. Of course, we as a Public Accounts Committee will do likewise.
I am very proud to be chairing the Public Accounts Committee in this House. It also makes me the critic of the Government on financial management. One of the reasons I am so proud to be chairing the Public Accounts Committee, and as a result being the critic for financial management of this Government, is that no Government in the history of Canada could give me more work to do than to be a critic of financial management.

May 24, 1989
Introduction of Bills
I want to say that in doing our work as a Public Accounts Committee this report, if adopted by the House, will allow us to meet with provincial Public Accounts Committees from across Canada, from July 9 to 12.
This will be the tenth annual meeting of all Public Accounts Committees at the provincial level and the national Public Accounts Committee here in Ottawa. This will give the Members at the provincial and the federal level a chance to discuss the way they handle their meetings, how they get information, what kind of witnesses they have before them, what approach they take to the serious problems, how we go about digging out the information that is required and, of course, paying attention to our own Auditor General's report. I think the Auditor General has done a very good job of bringing out some serious issues with which this Government is faced today.
Of course the first one is the inefficiencies and the lack of proper spending as a follow-up to the signing of the federal Government-Province of Nova Scotia federal-provincial agreement on the offshore. The Auditor General has pointed out that more than half that money was spent on things that he does not feel were related to offshore development. If a federal Minister or federal Government is to sign an agreement with a provincial Government, surely those matters should be brought out in the open.
I know that the Minister of Justice now wants me to sit down because what he has actually done is opened up a can of worms and allowed me to discuss why it is very important for us as a federal Public Accounts Committee here in the House of Commons to go and meet with the various provincial Public Accounts Committees across Canada to find out how we tackle all these problems.
The Minister of Justice will know that his Government signed an agreement with the Province Nova Scotia and that that agreement was, in fact, not lived up to. The Auditor General has brought this out very effectively.
Another point that he has brought out is that there are $8.8 billion in federal contracts that have been approved and sent out by the Department of Supply and Services.
According to the Auditor General, he does not see that there is a very effective way of following up on the auditing of those contracts to make sure that that money has been well spent as well.
There is another area-and this is very apropos both debates that will be going on this afternoon-that the Auditor General cites. He says there is a lack of information on statistical data to make wise decisions on forestry. Forestry is a big issue in this country and is one that we have to tackle very constructively in the future.
The Bill that will follow this great discussion this afternoon will be Bill C-3 dealing with the setting up of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. The Public Accounts Committee can look into this forestry issue very well and make sure that the proper research and development is done within forestry institutions in Canada. It can make recommendations on how we can work with the various provincial Departments of natural resources and can get on with that as well.
The Public Accounts Committee looks into all these matters that the Auditor General raises as ineffective spending or in fact lack of proper spending by the Government of Canada, as well as the agreements which the Government signs.
I want to thank the Minister of Justice for giving me this opportunity to deliver a brief speech on my report today.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very learned discussion on why the Public Accounts Committee is travelling to Edmonton for the annual meeting of Public Accounts Committees, provincial and federal, and his very persuasive argument to the Government that there is no need for any further discussion. We are prepared to have the motion go on the nod immediately.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 24, 1989

Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present, on behalf of thousands of Londoners from all three federal constituencies, the first instalment of many petitions. They speak with one common cause and one common voice demanding the Government to rescind its decision to close CFB London. The Government cannot afford to disregard the voices of thousands of people from London and are.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present this petition, which has been circulated by the Victims of Violence Society and is supported by 23 Members of Parliament. It bears 2,300 signatures and has been certified correct as to form and content.
The petition calls on the Government to tighten up the Extradition Act, make it conform with the extradition treaty, and stop Canada from becoming a haven for convicted criminals and murderers from other countries.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting petitions which have been signed by over 2,100 people and have been collected by organizations spearheaded by the Victims of Violence Society and Members of Parliament from across the country.
The national petition will be presented to this House over the next number of weeks. It is expected that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of signatures, will be gathered. I join the petitioners who are calling for the Government of Canada to revise the extradition laws and thereby allow the Minister of Justice to order the extradition of fugitives.


Mr. Dan Heap (IVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from a number of residents of Metro Toronto concerning the Government's proposal to change the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The petitioners point out that this will deprive many people of benefits to which they should have been entitled. The public was never warned during the elec-
Petitions
tion campaign that the Government would do this. The previous Parliament, through the Labour, Employment and Immigration Committee, had called for a move in the opposite direction.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to move immediately to adopt the recommendations presented to it by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the second session of the thirty-third Parliament and to reject any proposals to fund much needed retraining programs from unemployment benefit funds.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition from 135 residents of the City of Toronto and areas nearby concerning the Government's polity with regard to the backlog of refugee claimants who arrived before this year. They point out that many of them are denied permission to work causing strains on the public welfare system and that there is uncertainty about the standard that will be used to determine the decision about those who are not credible as refugees but may have humanitarian and compassionate grounds for being considered.
Therefore, they ask that the Government ensure that a statement of the humanitarian and compassionate grounds will be published, including the presence in Canada of their relatives and the successful establishment of refugee claimants in Canada, giving special consideration to those escaping war zones, oppressive Governments, and natural disasters.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting several petitions which have been appropriately certified by the Clerk of Petitions according to Standing Order 36.
These petitions are signed by several hundred persons from southern Ontario. They take note of the failure of the Government to have provided adequate resources to VIA Rail and, as a result, VIA Rail has not functioned as effectively as it could as a surface transportation mode. It also takes note of the fact that the Government now proposes to cut back VIA Rail further and takes note of the implications of deregulation of air passenger service.

May 24, 1989
Starred Questions
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail, in contrast to what the Government intends to do, in those areas of the country where VIA Rail might provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, and environmentally sound, as well as an energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 4, 8, 11,12, 13,14 and 29?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above-mentioned questions are as follows:]


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. St-Julien: In 1987, did the Canadian National Railway Company transport Hydro-Quebec transformers by special train No. 581, via Faribault, from Matagami to Varennes, in the province of Quebec, and, if so (a) what was the total cost involved (b) through which subdivisions was that train routed (c) what was the duration in hours of that special trip?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: The
Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows:
Yes, on October 23, 1987.
(a)	The total cost of the movement is of a proprietary nature and the Canadian National Railway Company believes it should not be made public for competitive reasons.
(b)	Via the Chapais Subdivision between Franquet and Faribault.
(c)	Approximately 13 days in total. Because of the large dimensions of the load, the routing of the train was limited to the rail line that provided the necessary width and height clearance.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Benjamin: For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, did any foreign-owned corporation claim tax deductions for interest arising from domestic borrowing to finance foreign activities and, if so, (i) what number (ii) what is the net revenue cost to the government of those deductions?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: The
requested data is not ascertainable from the financial statements and tax returns required to be filed with the Department and accordingly is not readily available to the Department.
In order to obtain this information the Department would have to audit the books and records of each foreign-owned corporation.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, did any corporations claim tax deductions for interest arising from borrowing money and, if so, (i) in what numbers (ii) what is the net revenue cost to the government of those deductions?
2.	For (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988, did any corporations claim tax deductions for interest arising from borrowing money to finance corporate restructuring, purchases of other corporations or corporate mergers and, if so, (i) in what numbers (ii) for each such claim, what is the net revenue cost to the government of those deductions?


Otto John Jelinek: The
requested data is not ascertainable from the financial statements and tax returns required to be filed with the Department and accordingly is not readily available to the Department.
In order to obtain this information the Department would have to audit the books and records of each corporation claiming expenses against income.


[Stage Direction]
^
Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): For (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 (e) 1984 (f) 1985 (g) 1986 (h) 1987, did any individual tax filers claim a dividend tax credit for shares held in a corporation which paid no corporate income tax, and, if so, (i) in what numbers (ii) what was the total net revenue cost?


Otto John Jelinek: The requested data is not captured by the Department and is not required to be reported in the financial statements and tax returns filed with the Department by individuals and corporations.
To obtain this information the Department would have to conduct a manual search for the corporate tax return of each payor; if the corporation's year-end was not the same as that of the payee, taxpayer contact would have
May 24, 1989

to be made to determine the years to which the dividends related.
TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING EXPENSES *


Ms. Black: For each year since 1984, did any (a) individuals (b) corporations claim tax deductions for advertising expenses and, if so, (i) what numbers (ii) what is the total net revenue cost to the government?


Otto John Jelinek: The
requested data is not ascertainable from the financial statements and tax returns required to be filed with the Department.
In order to obtain this information the Department would have to audit the books and records of each taxpayer claiming expenses against income.
TAX DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY INDIVIDUALS *


Mr. Kristiansen: For each year since 1984, did any individuals claim tax deductions for (a) bribes (b) kickbacks (c) fines for other offences and, if so, (i) in what numbers (ii) what is the net revenue cost to the government of those deductions?


Otto John Jelinek: The
requested information is not ascertainable from the financial statements and tax returns required to be filed with the Department and accordingly is not readily available for analysis by the Department.
In order to obtain this information the Department would have to audit the books and records of each taxpayer claiming expenses against income.
REVIEW OF UI REGIONAL BOUNDARIES *


Mr. Fisher: 1.	During the last four years, did the government conduct or commission any review of the regional boundaries used in determining eligibility for unemployment insurance and, if so, in each case (a) on what dates (b) were consultants hired and, if so, what are their names (c) at what total cost?
2.	Has the government analysed the potential effects on (a) unemployment insurance recipients (b) the Treasury of changing the regional boundaries used in determining unemployment insurance eligibility?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. (a) In September, 1988, the Commission approved a change to the boundaries of the Outaouais region in Quebec. The review was conducted by officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration and the expenses were met from within the existing departmental budget.
The only comprehensive review of the boundaries of UI regions which this government has initiated in the last four years is the one which was announced last August by the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration), a review which is still ongoing.
(b)-(c) This review is also being conducted by officials of the department and the expenses will be met from within the existing departmental budget.
2. (a)-(b) The impacts on UI recipients are not known at the present time because the project has not yet reached that stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Starred questions Nos. 4, 8,11,12,13,14 and 29 have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52,1 ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the rapidly escalating information about lack of security surrounding the preparation of the Budget with the resulting unauthorized pre-release of budgetary information in no fewer than five copies, as has been identified earlier today. One these copies fell into the hands of a financial institution and others in a position to take private advantage of it. As well, there has been a refusal of the Government to inform the House accurately on these

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
matters, to take its constitutional responsibilities on such matters seriously, or to act effectively on these matters.
At a press conference today at the Ottawa office of Soloway Wright was revealed the existence of no fewer than five copies of the document entitled Budget in Brief. Given the seriousness of this matter and the important recent revelations which were made as late as a few hours ago, I respectfully request that we have an emergency debate on this topic.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the appropriate notice in writing to the Chair. First, let me say to Hon. Members and to the public, that the issue that has been the subject of debate in the House for some time now, and especially today and yesterday, is of course a very serious matter. I do not think that any Member on either side of the House would doubt that. Just because it is serious, however, it does not necessarily fit the rules under which an emergency debate ought to proceed.
Members of the public will know that there was a very vivid exchange of questions and answers today and there may be more from time to time, but at least as of today I feel it is not appropriate to proceed with an emergency debate.
Having said that, let me assure the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that the Chair can understand the reason for the application and the Chair is in agreement with the Hon. Member that it is a serious matter.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today there were seven starred questions. The use of starred questions is restricted to three per Member and a Member may, if he puts a star on the question, require that an oral answer to the question be given to the House of Commons. I notice that in the last few days, the Speaker has let this rule go by without asking the Parliamentary Secretary to read the answers. I just wonder if we could follow the rules as strictly as we can and not allow such leeway to take place.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, because of the length of the answers and because of the number of questions that were answered, we have asked the permission of the House not to read the questions. Today the procedure went very quickly and, as a result, we moved beyond that stage and into the next stage of motions. Certainly we on this side of the House are cognizant of the rule and I will do my best to entertain the House by reading answers to some of the very important questions that have been put to us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is a very careful student of parliamentary procedure. Strictly speaking, the point he raises is one that ought to be observed unless, of course, there is a disposition in the House to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed without answering all the questions orally. However, the Chair has heard the point of the Hon. Member and the Chair will be diligent in ensuring that the rules are followed unless, as I say, there is a disposition in the House to dispense.
I might say that the Chair has also noticed that there has been a certain amount of energy on the Government side in delivering answers to questions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 25, 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 on the amendment of Mr. Langdon:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of 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 under 36(l)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that Parliament is committed
May 24, 1989
[Stage Direction]
to "furthering economic development to reduce disparity and opportunities".
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3 which sets up the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. In doing so, I must say that I have a very deep desire to see Canada participate more fully in research and development and to mean it.
The Government has shown its desire to do away with much of the Canadian R and D that has been and is in place now. It is rather prophetic that I rise this afternoon to speak on this Bill which involves science and technology because this morning at 9 a.m., Westinghouse Corporation announced the phasing out of its high-tech plant in the Town of Renfrew, a plant which is only about eight years old. This was a corporate decision made in the United States affecting one of the most modem high-tech plants in eastern Ontario.
Hon. Members will remember well the former DREE and DRIE and now the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology will take the place of those Departments, but it will not have the same effect. The nuts and bolts of this Bill is to set up a Department that will not relate in the same effective way to regional development in Canada. The Government is moving away once again from the support that has traditionally been given to the regions by governments since Confederation.
We in this Parliament may simply think that this is just another Bill. This is not just another Bill. Indeed, in a sense, it is a Bill in name only. The Government can have all the departments and agencies it likes called Industry, Science and Technology, but if it does not mean it, the Departments and agencies mean nothing.
I can recall when Mitel Corporation moved into the Town of Renfrew and undertook to build two more plants at Buctouche, New Brunswick, following that. One plant in New Brunswick was built but never opened. The plant in Renfrew eventually closed and the town lost something like 500 jobs at that time. Right across the road from that facility, there is the Westinghouse plant and its 150 employees received word today that corporate headquarters in the United States made the decision that this plant too must be phased out. I believe the first announcement about that plant was made in 1979 when $6.2 million from the former Department of
Industry, Science and Technology
Regional Economic Expansion was allocated to its construction. Later on, in order to help pay for some of the high-tech equipment that went into that plant, a Defence Industry Productivity Program was approved by the Cabinet in the early 1980s to the tune of $2.3 million which only paid for one and a quarter or one and a half pieces of equipment that went into the plant. So that gives us an idea of how high-tech this industry really was.
I am wondering if the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology made any representations to the Westinghouse Corporation to try to save this high-tech industry.
I am interested to know what discussions have gone on between this Government and the industry itself. These are serious questions. I consider eastern Ontario a very important and special region of this country. Indeed, in many ways eastern Ontario relates to the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada in general, because it has much the same way of life.
The Ottawa Valley is 250 miles east of Toronto, the same as western Quebec is hundreds of miles from Quebec City. This puts us in a special region where we need strong spokespersons to go to bat for the people and for the region itself. I feel for the 150 employees who received the news this morning that Westinghouse has decided to phase out their plant in Renfrew. I feel for the community and for the mayor who has been very supportive of development in her town.
As we discuss this Bill today, we are talking about a Bill on one hand and the reality of what is happening in this country on the other. I would like the Minister of the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology to comment on how this new Department is going to help the regions of this country. What association is it going to have with industries such as the one that closed this morning in Renfrew? Is it going to have negotiations? Is it going to move in and see what it can do to help them out?
It is a well-known fact that this Government is anti-Crown corporation. In this country we have some of the finest research and development, science and technology being performed by Crown corporations. Any private company that cannot afford to have its own labs can contract out to these corporations to have its research done. Crown corporations can contract for research and development. Tests can be run and the information given back on a private basis. One of the great things about having a public operation for research and development, such as a high-tech Crown corpora-

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
tion, is that any new inventions, new ideas, new proposals, new ventures that come out of those Crown corporations can go to any industry in the country that can use them. It is not somebody's private domain or private information. That is very important because that helps all industry, small and large.
The United States corporate decision to close the Westinghouse plant in the Town of Renfrew is regrettable. It shows once again that where there are branch plants in Canada that are headquartered in the United States, when any rationalization takes place or when there are cut-backs, it is the regions of this country with American branch plants that suffer first and foremost. Nothing is more plain than the truth we have seen today.
Many people in the regions of this country work hard together, municipalities, community leaders, to help support their communities. This happens across northern Canada where it is absolutely imperative that people stick together and work together for their regions. That is what is going to build this nation. It is not going to be the bottom line on some ledger book that is going to develop this country as a whole. The bottom line in the ledger book is going to make money or show the deficit or otherwise for a private company. But this Government is so hung up on corporate Canada, on the corporate community, that it cannot see beyond the horizon. It does not see into the regions and appreciate the great potential that is there for the future of Canada.
As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, one area that the Auditor General really zeroed in on was the lack of forestiy statistical data to really make wise decisions on reforestation in this country. From long before Confederation, the three great industries of Canada have been agriculture, forestry and the fisheries. To a large degree these three elements are still extremely important to this country as a whole. The three of them touch every comer of this nation.
Madam Speaker, it is very important to have the kind of data that shows the amount of forests that have been burned annually, to show the amount of land where trees
have been cut, which has proven to be of no use to agriculture and should therefore be reforested to put it to the use that nature intended. With regard to insects attacking trees-the spruce budworm, for example- there is no more important area that this Government and this Department can zero in on with research and development and science and technology than the protection of trees from diseases. They must be protected because it takes a long time to grow a tree, but insects can destroy it in very short order. We have to have a handle on all the information that natural resources departments have in every province of this country and wherever other natural resources elements apply from the territories, so that good information is available upon which to make judgments and plans.
The federal-provincial forestry agreements are extremely important to this country because they provide for the replanting of those lands that I have mentioned. When cuts are made, trees must be planted. It is true that many companies do a very good job of planting trees. But our caucus committee on the softwood lumber issue talked to some witnesses who stated that only one-eighth of the cut over lands in their particular area had been reforested by man. It is important that you get good quality trees to plant in those areas. Otherwise, if you are going to get second and third growth, you have a poor class of timber and it costs more to produce and costs more to put it through sawmills, and so on.
There should be research and development into tree growth and into producing a good breed of trees. We have some very good projects and facilities available for that. However, the bottom line is that if the Government is not interested in investing, and it cannot be called spending, but investing in research and development and good quality forestiy research, then there will not be a return on those funds down the line. It will not be money that is thrown out of the window. We will be building for the future. We will be providing industry with the material for the future. Industry itself will certainly assist in doing this job in Canada. I wish to zero in on that particular aspect because indirectly and directly forestry employs something like 11 per cent of the labour force of Canada. That is why it is so extremely important to us.

The National Research Council is another thing that comes to mind as I look at this Bill on industry, science and technology. There was a particular lack of commitment by the Government in the last Parliament when it cut and cut the National Research Council.
A few weeks ago I had occasion to drive into the heartland of Algonquin Park. There, sitting in the bush with only the bears to view, it was a $50-million telescope with related equipment around it and only two people to look after and safeguard it. That very famous telescope, one of the three best in the world at the time, was closed down by the Government in the last Parliament. That research and development was taken out to a mountainside in Hawaii in the United States. Instead of owning it entirely ourselves, as we did in Algonquin Park and as we do in B.C., the Government bought a 25 per cent share in a telescope in Hawaii, which it obviously does not control. However, it will be very handy, because one can imagine how many people from the Public Service who perhaps recommended this as a great thing to do, or how many people related to it in any way, can now take a holiday in Hawaii and do their business with the telescope out there in which Canada has a 25 per cent share.
We know that many companies that conduct research and development receive loans from Governments. They have contracts that are approved by the Department of Supply and Services. They do research and development or they develop new products or product lines. Yet we find that today in the Department of Supply and Services there is a total of $8.8 billion in contracts that have been highlighted by the Auditor General of Canada as not being effectively and efficiently audited within that Department. He has asked that they pull up their socks and start doing a better job. When one thinks of this type of money floating around, that the Auditor General has stated is not being properly audited or followed up on, then how much money is there that is being wasted and could go into research and development that the Government could use to do some very effective things?
Agriculture is another area that has been hit and downgraded on the basis of lack of research and development.
Tourism is one of the great industries and will be the largest industry in this country, and in most countries of the world, by the year 2000. In fact, it is going to overtake
Industry, Science and Technology
the food industry as one of the leading industries in the world. Last year, tourists spent $2 trillion travelling around the world. Many of them visited famous scientific sites, and many of them visited some of the wonders created by science and technology in the world. By the year 2000 that will be doubled. Visitors will be spending $2 trillion to $4 trillion travelling around the world. There is a lot of work that can be done in that area. We in Canada should be among those nations that have some very important things to show to the world.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, as I mentioned in a previous speech in the House a couple of weeks ago, is one of the greatest research facilities we have in the nation. Now the Government has given it a 60-day or 90-day deadline to show how it is going to pay its way, or it will not be loaned any more money.
No other advanced country in the world today asks its own research facilities to pay their own way. The Governments in those technologically advanced and progressive countries in the world that are dominating world trade have a commitment to their research and development. They are putting their money where their mouth is and the money is flowing back to them because they have invested wisely.
I say to the Government today, if it is going to bring in a new Department called Industry, Science and Technology, it should develop a commitment to science and technology in this country, develop a commitment to research and development, and bring the country back from where it has been taken into a progressive, positive outlook for the development of the nation and the development of new products. Let us become one of the jewels in the world that people can point to and say that Canada has indeed done a tremendous job in developing research and development and new scientific inventions to back up the good society that we have today. Let us show we are out there leading the pack. We will not be leading the pack under this Government, however, unless there is a tremendous change in outlook.


Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont):: I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Hopkins) that we understand very well his concern about the closing of the Westing-house plant in Renfrew. The jobs will be moved to Hamilton, not to the United States. We must look at the background of this plant. Those facilities were established to produce and manufacture turbine blades and components of mechanical-drive turbines. The antici-

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
pated market for those products has not materialized. Over the last years the company lost $30 million.
I can say to the Hon. Member that the Department is working to find another company to buy back the facilities and to have some other products manufactured there. We know that the employees will be offered a comprehensive adjustment package. I am sure that the Department will be able to help and inform the Member on any facts that he may need.
I wish to put before the House the fact that when the Government came in it changed the tax exemptions for research and development. The Member suggested that we are spending money on technology and different things and saying it is research and development.
That tax rebate was the best example of giving money to companies without at least ensuring that they do research and development. We know that research and development on new products involves world-wide competition. We must have joint ventures with countries and companies must have joint ventures between themselves.
We have to choose in which sector Canada can be competitive. That is what we are trying and results are happening. We are becoming more and more competitive in the market-place.
This Department must work toward making industry competitive and innovative. That means that we must do research and development but do it with industry and on a competitive basis in the world-wide market.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a good point when he talked about what was happening as far as companies are concerned. I can tell the House that company officials here in Canada have taken a very humanistic view of the employees and of the community.
In no way did I say that the employees were going to the United States. I did say that the decision to phase out of the plant was made by the Westinghouse Corporation in the United States.
It is not true that all of the employees will be going to Hamilton. Some will go to Hamilton, and the Westing-house officials in Canada have been very constructive in stating that they will work with the community and a committee of the community, of which I understand I will be a member, to try to get someone else into that plant.
This is where I believe the Department of Industry, Science and Technology can play a role. There are some very good public servants from DREE and DRIE who are very dedicated. They are in this Department of Industry, Science and Technology. I would simply ask the Minister to commit himself today to allow these people within his Department some latitude to work with the officials of the community and indeed with Westing-house in Canada to do everything possible to assist in a changeover at least to bring another industry into that high-tech plant.
I give Westinghouse credit. By comparison, Westing-house has approached this matter and has approached the community in a far more human and down-to-earth way than did the British firm that bought out the $30 million Mitel plant across the road.
They simply walked away from it, took some of the people and left the Town of Renfrew sitting there with 500 lost jobs. Furthermore, there is always a problem collecting taxes from industries when they close.
It is my understanding that Westinghouse Corporation, Canadian Division, will retain the ownership of the plant and is willing to lease it to another customer that may want to come in. It is an ideal proposition for a high-tech company that wants to start up.
It also takes the community off the hook. With Westinghouse Canada retaining ownership of the plant, it means the Town of Renfrew will get its municipal taxes and that will be one less headache.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for his comments. I want to see the community and those good public servants in that Department, whom I have known for a long time and know personally, work closely with the Westinghouse Corporation to get something else into
May 24, 1989

that plant. I hope that along the way, when we run into a snag and need some help, the Department and the Ministry will be there to help us in every way they possibly can.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the motion which was placed before the House by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). His amendment states:
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 under s. 36(l)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that Parliament is committed to "furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities".
I recognize that there are positive aspects of the Bill. Certainly all Canadians should applaud more efforts in research and development and the integration of science with technology, even though some criticism can be made of that, as was pointed out by the Hon. Member who spoke before me. I oppose the Bill and support the amendment for two reasons. One is the continuing abdication of the historical role of the federal Government in the development of our national economy. This legislation illustrates another step in the abdication of that historic role.
Second, that abdication of responsibility is not an abstract matter. It has a real effect on people in the communities.
Historically, the role of the federal Government has been to strengthen the ties between east and west in Canada and to develop a strong national economy. Confederation came about because the various colonies in Canada made arrangements whereby they could all profit from the union. Early Governments in this country proceeded to build a national railway so that we would have an industrial structure, an independent economy and strengthen ties between east and west to give our national life and national economies some meaning. This was followed in the 1920s and 1930s by the introduction of national institutions such as the Canadian Wheat Board and the CBC, both of which were introduced by Conservative Governments. These were instruments to foster the east-west ties and to make Canada stronger.
Much of the industrial structure we enjoy today was developed as a result of the war economy. It was developed through the direct participation of the federal Government with the so-called dollar-a-year men from business and industry, which helped to develop an
Industry, Science and Technology
economic infrastructure that produced many kinds of goods and services.
There was a commitment to regional development throughout the Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau years. We fondly remember the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which did some very good work and laid the framework for new ways of integrating our national economy in the modem era. In 1982, regional development was recognized as a significant enough task for the federal Government to be included in the Canadian Constitution.
What has been happening lately? We are moving toward a global, or international economy. Goods and services flow from country to country, stock exchanges are open around the clock throughout the world and countries that previously had little economic clout have become our competitors. Clearly, these things mean that Canadians have to change, that we have to develop new ways of doing things. We accept that. In fact, we welcome that type of challenge. It is not something from which we should hide.
The Canadian Government had a clear choice about how it could confront these new developments, this emerging international economy. It could go the route of the neo-Conservatives who held sway in Great Britain and the United States. They said that the market would determine the way the economy would develop and that the Government would not play a role in national planning. There have been successes under that type of approach. Some people and some parts of those countries have become very wealthy. However, a great many people have been left behind, something which has become very clear over the years.
There is another approach. It is the one which has been taken by West Germany, Japan and, collectively, the European Common Market countries. It is a managed economy approach. In this approach the Government sees itself as playing a role to ensure that the economy benefits not only the corporate few, the companies which have the assets to get involved in the mainstream of international finance, but that each sector of the economy is developed. This is an integrated economy which can serve many of the national needs and not be vulnerable to the whims and currents of international finance. If we look at these two models, what we are saying to the Government is that it made the wrong

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
choice. The choice it made simply ignores the historical and economic realities of our country. It will not work.
What we needed was a new approach. However, we did not get the type of new approach which we needed. The approach the Government is taking now has a number of flaws. One of those flaws is that it is reactive rather than proactive. What we are doing is waiting for enterprises to come to the Government, ask for a grant and have the Government respond rather than analyse the economy, see where we are weak and where we are strong and take organized action both in the private and public sector to address those structural flaws. The approach the Government is taking ignores grass roots movements in the country, movements such as the co-operative movement, the community economic development movement and small business. All of these have tremendous problems organizing their resources and accessing massive beasts like the Western Diversification Office and the new Department. Those are instruments which simply are not available and which do not play any type of supportive role for the self-help community type of enterprises which, when we look at the statistics, is where we see the new jobs and the new opportunities overwhelmingly being created.
We are left with no ongoing vehicle for integrated planning. We have no Department that will look at things on a national basis and that integrates one type of development in one part of the countiy with another in another part of the country. We have no parliamentary committee which allows Members of the House from all parts of the country to tour the country to see for themselves and to make informed decisions with respect to what direction the economics of the country should be headed in.
In regions like my own we are concerned that this lack of an integrated approach will cause us problems, for example, in the whole adjustment to free trade. The Government promised the world's finest adjustment mechanisms. The de Grandpre report let the Government off the hook by stating that we have the finest ones.
I presume that refers to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. What we envision happening, as the Hon. Member from Renfrew pointed out, is that as plants close or the economies of the large metropolitan areas are impacted by free trade money that should be going to parts of the countiy like my own will be transferred from those areas where we need to create new jobs and new opportunities
to parts of the country that are experiencing the effects of free trade.
We see too that there is no mechanism in place whereby an integrated approach can be taken to developing the infrastructure of the countiy. I am talking not only about the political infrastructure, the roads, transportation and air travel and so on, but we do not even have a banking system in most of northern Canada. In the north half of Saskatchewan there are only three banks. This means that without the involvement of agencies like the old DREE there is no access to capital in many areas of the country. We do not have any mechanism whereby we can co-ordinate our development of infrastructure. The Government prides itself on its deregulation. All that really means is that areas of the countiy that do not have the infrastructure now can certainly count on not having one in the future.
In leaving the regional development portions for Quebec and Ontario in this Department, we are concerned that the historic problem of developments not taking place outside of Quebec and Ontario will be reinforced by the structure of the Department. In fact, if we look at what should be done as opposed to what is being done, we can see that not only should we be taking new directions but we should in fact be changing the direction in which we are going now. In this regard one has to look only at the situation with VIA Rail where the Government is abandoning passenger train service at a time when we are facing potential serious energy shortages. We are seeing the abandonment of branch lines and the failure to upgrade them in the Province of Saskatchewan. We are seeing privatization, and the abandonment of post offices in small communities. We are seeing marketing boards, which give our farmers in all parts of the countiy equal access to the market, under attack on many fronts, certainly from free trade and the Government's own Budget.
We see no action being taken in the whole merger mania where the apologists here on millionaire's row just get out of the way and let the elephants have it while the small business sectors in the regions of the countiy are left to be trampled.
May 24, 1989

I guess the Free Trade Agreement has changed a lot of other equations. If there ever was a time when regional development programs were important it is now. What the Free Trade Agreement means is that the Government has given up any type of national vision. It has given up on Canada. It intends to give in to the natural north-south economic pole. It has no more confidence that Governments in Canada and the people of Canada can build their own economy. In other words, it is prepared to let big business dictate the agenda.
If we look at the last election which, indeed, the Government clearly won, we see that the regions of the country were clearly not impressed by the Government's assurances that regional development would not be affected. When we look at the square miles of territory which are held by the Government versus the Opposition, we see that the Government holds 919,000 square miles of territory while 5,188,000 square miles are represented by opposition Members. Some 85 per cent of the area of the country is represented by members of the Opposition. That clearly indicates that the people in the regions have no confidence that free trade will be good for them. They know it will mean that the secondary processing they need will not be there. They know that the Government involvement which could return to them the wealth that comes out of their regions for development and Government initiatives will no longer be there.
My own region, northern Saskatchewan, is feeling the effects already. Between the beginning of the year and the first three months of this year, the Province of Saskatchewan lost 13,000 people in population, 6,000 people in the month of February alone. We will soon be like North Dakota which has a population of only about 500,000, and many of those would not be there if it were not for the militarization of the economy. We see that our Government is encouraging the militarization of our economy. We can see that that is what we have to look forward to.
Cities in Saskatchewan have the fastest growing unemployment rate in the country. When I talk to people back home, one of the big factors in their despair and their lack of confidence in the future of our region is that the Government has clearly signalled over the last year that it is abandoning regional development. It has closed the offices in Prince Albert and La Ronge. It has failed to renew the regional development agreements, and in particular the Northern Economic Development Subsid-
Industry, Science and Technology
iary Agreement, which had done good work over five years in developing the wild rice industry and creating tourist infrastructure, as well as community development corporations. These are all things which people saw as the vehicle to the future.
With the tourism agreement, the minerals agreement and the forestry agreement, we see that the resources that should have been available to fight forest fires and enhance the forests of that region are not there. The Government will probably come back and say: "Well, you have WDO. We are putting new things into place. You have the new Department." However, when you look at the budgets that are available in this year, the ERDA agreements have been cut by $50 million. WDO budget has been cut by $40 million. The Government states that over five years there is going to be more money spent. We can clearly see what is going to happen over five years. For the first few years there will be starvation, then there will be a feast. Ironically and probably not unintentionally just before the next election there will be a feast of money for the Government's friends in the regions. That is no way to develop a regional economy. That may be a way to buy a few votes but it is certainly not a way to develop the economy of Canada.
In summary, let me say that I oppose this particular piece of legislation, not out of some romantic longing for eras that have gone by in this country, or for some allegiance to a philosophy that perhaps it has had its time but it is past. I oppose it because it ignores the reality of the history and economic structure of this country. It will not work. I oppose it because it means throwing out the vision of Canada which has its own independent and integrated economy.
Therefore, I urge the Government to show some faith in this country so that every person and every community is confident that it has a future role to play in the development of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my hon. friend, particularly when he listed a number of the cut-backs that have hampered his region economically. He mentioned forest fire-fighting. If I understand him correctly, the fires that have been occurring in northern Saskatchewan perhaps could have been better fought if there had not been cut-backs in the

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
forest fire fighting provisions. I would like the Hon. Member to explain that point a little further.
In a similar connection, he made a general statement that the wealth that is derived from the region is not being returned to the region through development. I am interested in that concept because I think it applies in many other parts of Canada. Could the Hon. Member give us some examples of the kind of development which would not be a hand-out from Ottawa-and I am not trying to suggest that it is, but it is sometimes looked upon that way by unsympathetic people-but a return of some of what was produced by the region to enable the region to develop more strongly.


Raymond John Funk: I thank my colleague for his questions. They allow me to expand on a few points that I should have been more explicit about in my speech.
First, with respect to the forest fire situation and forest fire fighting, that obviously is a provincial responsibility. However, Saskatchewan had historically not paid as much attention to the forest sector as perhaps it should. Over the last five years there has been a serious commitment to the renewal of forestry stands, planting, thinning and some forest management practices, and also to bring up to date the technology that is required to fight fires, given the fact that fire hazards arise all the time from more people being in the bush. Certainly, we have had some very dry years.
What happened was that people assumed that these agreements would run for 10 years because the original ERDA framework was a 10-year agreement and this was just the first five years.
Two things happened. One is that a number of significant initiatives, in terms of computer mapping of potential fire areas, detection equipment and response mechanisms were being planned, and in fact were midway in their implementation when the agreement ended.
Second, the agreement brought a significant amount of new expertise and personnel to the Province of Saskatchewan. We were starting to develop a professional sector. It takes a whole sector to cope with some of these major emergencies. What we have seen is that the
equipment and technology that people had expected to be able to develop over a 10-year basis has been cut off in mid stream. A lot of the expertise is now already leaving the province just at the time when we need it most.
The Hon. Member also referred to what kinds of development there might be that could return some of the wealth. There is great wealth produced in my constituency. For example, we have a large uranium mining industry. There are other types of hard rock mining. There are extensive stands of forests that are being exploited. What happens is that those resources leave the area, as they do in many parts of the country, without being processed. There is very little local involvement. I might add, that such involvement will no longer be possible to be required by legislation under the free trade deal where it was at least possible before. What people had hoped, and what in fact happened in the past, is that some of that money came back in infrastructure development.
We cannot have an economy if we do not have roads. We cannot have an economy if we do not have banks. We cannot have an economy if we do not have schools. We cannot have an economy if we do not have access to the types of financial services that other people have. We cannot have a well developed economy if our basic resources are not in our own hands.
What had been happening is that sectoral organizations in wild rice, in fisheries, in forestry and tourism had been developing, whereas communities in the region pooled their resources and their expertise.
The Government essentially played an organizing role to organize those communities to use their resources and to get access to the type of capital that normally is available to all Canadians.
The framework under WDO in this new Department simply does not permit that kind of local organization to take place any more. In my mind, that is a real tragedy because we did have some good things going.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Further questions or comments. Questions. The Hon. Member for Moncton.


Mr. Rideout:: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the Member's comments and his speech. We in New Brunswick face the same types of problems that were referred to, with ACOA and what it means. We had DRIE and we had DREE. We are very concerned with where this particular Department is going and what its influence is going to be. We feel that in the long run we are probably going in the wrong direction, and really not going to achieve all that we hoped to with this Department.
When we couple that with the ERDA agreements being in arrears and not negotiated, and cut-backs in ACOA, I have grave concerns as to where the economy is going and what is really going to happen. I believe that the Member is alluding to the same things in his constituency and in his concerns, and perhaps he may wish to comment on that.


Raymond John Funk: I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I certainly have come to realize that when people try to read their papers they find that some of these trends have been there for a long time. Being in this House and hearing firsthand from Members from the various regions of the country, it is becoming very clear that in fact this is a pattern. Any kind of systematic development of local economies is really going by the boards. Local initiatives are being effectively starved by the Government's approach. It does not take very much money. The Government is still in some respects ladling out large sums of money, although there have been some cuts.
Those funds are not going where they are needed. They are not going to support local initiatives. They are certainly not going into any kind of planned approach, and that is what is essential so that the economy of the centre of the country can support the economies of the regions and vice versa. We should have an integrated economy so that we are not forever vulnerable to international tides which wash over us from time to time. Certainly you cannot isolate yourself entirely, but you can develop better rounded economies than we have now in the regions. The Government's approach makes the problems worse rather than giving us any assistance to improve the situation.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill
Industry, Science and Technology
C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. This Bill also repeals the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
I would like to focus my remarks on the regional development mandate of the department.
In June, 1987, the Government transferred responsibility for development initiatives in the Atlantic region to the newly created Atlantic Opportunities Agency.
In August, 1987, responsibility for development initiatives in western Canada was transferred to the newly created Department of Western Economic Diversification.
The federal Government also created FEDNOR in the last Parliament which is an agency to promote economic development in northern Ontario.
Northerners waited hopefully for an announcement of a northern development program and agency. Such an announcement never came. Every region of the country except for the northern Territories has its own regional development program. The Atlantic Region has the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the West has Western Diversification, northern Ontario has FEDNOR and Ontario and Quebec have special agreements with the federal Government. Where does the North fit into the regional economic development priorities of the Government? We seem to have been forgotten.
Last week in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Andre) whether he had any special plans for northern economic development. His reply amazed me. His response suggested that there is no need for his Department to have any special program for the North since the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development exists.
He actually said:
We have got a whole department. It is called the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He went on to say:
I guess in some sense Western Diversification is to the West as
Northern Development is to the North, a department of
Government that has its economic development responsibility for
that region.

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
If that remark of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion typifies the Government's attitude toward northern development the North is in big trouble.
For the benefit of those who do not already know, the mandate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is very much broader than economic development. It encompasses political and social responsibilities. By no means can the economic development budget of that Department be equated to the Western Diversification Program.
This year the Western Economic Diversification Program has a budget of $287 million. By contrast, the economic development portion of the Northern Affairs program this year is $73 million.
It is true that the Territorial Government receives funding in the form of transfer payments from the federal Government. This year the Northwest Territories will receive $822.2 million and the Yukon will receive $225.1 million in transfer payments. But these federal transfers go to all the provinces as well. The North is not receiving anymore than any other Government. In fact, I believe it is receiving less than it ought to receive.
I would like the Government to give serious consideration to the establishment of a northern development agency. The Northwest Territories cover an area of 3.3 million square kilometres. It constitutes roughly one-third of Canada's land mass. Our location poses some severe economic restraints such as remoteness from prime North American markets, long winters and higher utility and other costs. Our population is small and scattered and the education levels for a large part of the population could be higher. However, we have an abundance of resources and people with energy, ideas and motivation. What we need is more encouragement and support from this Government.
Settling land claims will provide economic stability and, I hope, will provide the north Indian, Inuit and Metis people with the resources they require to be full partners in northern and Canadian economies. Building the northern economy requires commitment and investment. The North must have control of its resources and the development of those resources. What we require from the federal Government are the tools and the authority to get the job done.
Before I conclude, I want to also touch on native economic development which is, according to the Government, an important component of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. The Native Economic Development Program was established by the previous Liberal Government in 1981. The program was to run for four years with a budget of $345 million. In the last Parliament the Conservative Government extended the program for another year. It expired at the end of March but applications in the system already will be considered until the end of July.
Aboriginal people are wondering what program the Government will bring in to replace the Native Economic Development Program. It appears from comments by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) last week that a new program, to be called the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Program, will soon be announced. It seems from the outset that the new program will be an amalgamation of the Native Economic Development Programs from a number of Departments such as Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Employment and other programs such as the special ARDA.
Aboriginal people are anxious to know whether the new program will be adequate to meet the economic needs that exist among the aboriginal people and the aboriginal communities. The Government knows that the economic conditions of the aboriginal people are the poorest in the country. Over half the aboriginal population is under the age of 25. These young people want jobs and economic opportunities.
The Government in its Throne Speech, as well as in other releases, has said that the priorities will be in native economic development and it seems that one of the ways in which the Government will attempt to do it is to combine or consolidate the different programs that already exist. However, that does not address the need for more funding in order to accommodate the large population of aboriginal people across Canada. The problem with that announcement is that the Government will not be renewing the Native Economic Development Program or putting any new money in place of that program to compensate for the expiration of that program. We have to press the Government to ensure that it does not simply consolidate the funding of the different programs and call it a new program but that it adds more money to the Native Economic Development
May 24, 1989

Program to ensure that the economic opportunities of aboriginal people will be addressed by the Government, as it has said it would so often in the last few weeks.
The Government's new program must be one which gives hope to the young people and to their home communities in order to ensure that those young people who are going into further education may participate fully in Canadian life. We have become so aware of native post-secondary education in the last few weeks through rallies to ensure that the Government does not put a cap on funding of post-secondary education for Indian people. We must ensure that the young people of the North have the opportunity to be involved in the economic mosaic of Canada. That will require more money rather than a simple consolidation of the program.


Benoît Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I wish to reassure the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak) that as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, it is the intention of the Government to extend the native economic program. Proposals for a future program will be based on the results of the consultative process which is now under consideration. This process of consultation was formally conducted between July, 1987 and March, 1988 with interested native people from all parts of Canada. This was the most extensive public consultative process ever conducted by the Department and it was directed by the task force review group.
The program has been extended to July, 1989, and I can assure the Hon. Member that the intention in the Speech from the Throne will be respected by the Government. This will be in consultation with native people.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, if the consultation the Hon. Member is talking about is the same kind of consultation the Government said it did regarding postsecondary education funding, then I do not think that that consultation will be effective. In fact, it may even be non-existent.
The Native Economic Development Program has been extended until the end of July, 1989. However, it has been extended only with the existing funds. It is not an
Industry, Science and Technology
extension with more money added to the program of $345 million.
There was consultation regarding the Native Economic Development Program of which I was a part some years ago. I hope it really does address the needs across Canada. However, I reiterate that most consultations seem to end up on the bookshelves collecting dust, and I hope that the Hon. Member will relay that to the Government. The Government has consistently said that it is all for native people and all for the poorer regions. I hope it will heed that consultative process if indeed it does happen.


Mr. MacLellan:: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to my colleague who has just spoken very eloquently and very informatively about the problems facing those in the northern part of Canada today. I sympathize with the points he has made and I can identify, being a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, with his concerns about what exactly the Government will be doing.
In Atlantic Canada, we have seen funding for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency whittled away. We have now been told that funding for the ERDA agreements will be reduced and the Hon. Member is now saying that his area does not even have an agreement. All it has is an extension to the end of July of the agreement which has elapsed with no additional funding. He is hearing the same platitudes about the Government's concern for northern Canada while in fact there is an erosion in funding for northern Canada rather than an increase in funding.
Not only is there a complete disregard for the Native Economic Development Program but there is also a whittling away of the economic base of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would ask the Hon. Member to elaborate on just what this reduction in funding will impact on. Perhaps he could tell us the urgency of the situation as he sees it.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. In many cases, the North is seen as being a desolate land, but we like to think that it is quite different. It is a beautiful land and that is why it is called Nunatsiaq which means beautiful land in Inkti-tut. The people up North are very determined to be part of the Canadian mosaic in economic and social develop-

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
ment and all the other things that Canadians down here take for granted.
We are being told that there will be more funding for the Native Economic Development Program, but I made the point earlier that to our knowledge, and the Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology made that statement inadvertently at a committee meeting last week, the Native Economic Development Program which was introduced some years ago by the Liberal Government is now being phased out. From what the Minister said, it sounds as if the Government will consolidate some already existing programs under Indian Affairs and call it a new program, the Canadian aboriginal development agency or something along those lines, into which no new money will be put. Combining them will make it seem as if there is more money coming in, and if that is not a cut in native economic development programs, then I do not know how one defines a cut.
So we are already being cut in our other programs, not in economics, other than the ones that I mentioned, but in social programs such as those under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Native Associations. Those programs have already been cut. But the Government will come back and say that it has already raised the budget for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. In fact, it is required by law to do so by the agreements it has with the Inuvialuit and the James Bay Cree and as a result of other land claims settlements made in the past. It has no choice but to raise those. But any way it can cut down on the funding for native programs, whether economical, social or otherwise, it is doing so.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on debate on this important piece of legislation-


Madam Speaker:: I thought the Member was rising on questions and comments as there were a few minutes left. I should advise the House that we have now completed the first eight hours of debate. From now on, interventions will be limited to a 10 minute period.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise today in debate on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-3, which does more than just establish a new
Department of Industry, Science and Technology. It goes on to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and make consequential amendments to other Acts.
This part of the legislation is extremely telling and very disconcerting for people in Atlantic Canada. In order to understand what this Bill means, we have to look at regional development in the last 25 years in this country. In the 1960s, a Liberal Government put into effect the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It did that in the 1960s because it was recognized that it was not good enough to have 12, 15 or 20 line departments with their programs impacting across the country and not have a specific mandate to look after regional development and wealth redistribution in this country. So in the wisdom of that government, it was decided a department was needed. The need for that department went almost as a superministry throughout all government programs and all of the departments. The department had a very specific mandate. It was to make sure that government policy and government programs were aware of the need for wealth redistribution and the real need for regional development programs in Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario, in the North and the West.
In subsequent years, the same Liberal government changed the legislation and turned it into the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to more closely twin industry with economic development in the regions. That was an important change. In 1984, we saw a departure from this legislative method of redistributing wealth in Canada. We saw a new government elected which was bent on bottom line profits. That new government did not share the commitment to Canada where it did not matter where you lived, whether in Atlantic Canada, the West, whether you lived in a Liberal province, a Conservative province, a Liberal riding, a Conservative riding or an NDP riding. The Government felt that the bottom line always had to be the deciding factor. What it did starting in 1984, under the guise of budget cutting and austerity measures, was to significantly cut back the commitment to regional development.
During the 1988 campaign this Government opposite made much ado while travelling across this country by telling Canadians that regional development programs were safe, that the Liberals and the NDP were lying by
May 24, 1989

saying that regional development programs were at risk if this Government were to be re-elected.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself said that he was committed to maintaining regional development programs in every guise. Indeed in 1987 he created a great deal of fanfare by a public proclamation of a new program called the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This was announced in St. John's, Newfoundland when, I believe, he was on a junket over to Europe. I do not have the exact quote, but I think I am close enough when I say that he said this is $1.05 billion in new money in a new direction. This is not old money. This is not recycled money. It is new money. He said it again and again during the federal campaign in the fall of last year. He also said a lot of other things concerning regional development. His Deputy Prime Minister prior to the campaign said that things like VIA Rail, the national infrastructure of a rail transportation system from one coast to the other, would be expanded so that everyone across this country could benefit by an efficient and renewed rail transportation system.
After the election was over what we saw was nothing short of startling. Even in my wildest dreams as an opposition Member on the campaign trail, I could not have seen that this Government's agenda for regional development could be as sinister. I could not have imagined that what the Government would do after it was elected to another term was to systematically cut the Atlantic provinces adrift. It is unbelievable that any government that sits in this Parliament could be as callous as it has proven to be in the last number of weeks and months.
The first thing it has done, if we talk about regional development, is completely abandon its position as the protector of that great national resource that we have on the East Coast called the fishery. Over two years ago the fishermen and people in the industry begged this Government, the Minister at the time and the current Minister to have a look at the fishery because they said the Atlantic fisheries were in crisis. This Minister and this Government ignored their pleas. We saw just prior to the election last year that this Government actually increased quotas for northern cod at a time when there was some conflicting information available from its very own officials that said that the cod stocks may be in peril.
Industry, Science and Technology
After the election, we saw what the real agenda was. It has mismanaged the fisheries.
Just a few weeks ago, we had an announcement by National Sea Products that there would be over 5,000 individuals affected by lay-offs and by plant closures in Atlantic Canada. There are 30,000 individuals in Nova Scotia alone who depend on the fisheries directly or indirectly for a livelihood. This is not some small mom and pop shop on the comer that, if it closes, people will go somewhere else and get another job in a retail outlet or another mom and pop shop. This is a major national industry, not just in Nova Scotia and not just in Atlantic Canada. But the Government sat back until the fisheries were in a state of complete collapse. Strike one on Atlantic Canada.
Then the Minister of Employment came in with sweeping changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which have had a very disastrous effect on some of the regions of Canada, some places in Nova Scotia. What it did was increase the number of weeks that individuals would have to work before they could qualify, decrease the amount of benefits payable and at the same time decrease the benefit payment period. That has had a net negative effect on Atlantic Canada. This winter there will be hundreds of individuals, perhaps thousands, that because of these regressive changes, these uncaring changes, will be forced onto welfare in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. But to date all our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Then we had the infamous Budget that came through, the Budget that was going to set everything straight. In the minds of Atlantic Canadians it set a lot of things straight. We have seen cuts to established program funding in Atlantic Canada. It hits there harder than in Ontario and Quebec than in most provinces. In Nova Scotia, a cut of $16 million to $18 million in established program funding, moneys that are used to fund our medical system and our post-secondary education system. Our post-secondary educational institutions were already in crisis in Nova Scotia. This is a crippling blow. Hospitals in Nova Scotia, because the provincial treasury did not have the revenue, had to shut down entire wings. But we have a national medicare system. We are supposed to have equal access to medical care of a high national calibre no matter where we live. But $15 million of that $17 million or $18 million that has been cut out of the transfers for health care has occurred in Nova Scotia. That is going to affect many poor areas of Nova Scotia,

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, create more hospital bed closures and a deterioration in the residents of Atlantic Canada's ability to have access to quality health care.
Then we saw the big shell game with the Government and the Minister responsible for ACOA. I referred to it earlier, the $ 1.05-billion five-year program of new money. We have seen what has happened with that under the Budget.
The Budget came down and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made much ado about nothing, as did the Minister responsible for ACOA. They talked about how they had increased the commitment. By the time the opposition Parties and the media went through the forest built around the actual figures in those Estimates, it was only last week when we found out that ACOA's five-year program was going to be stretched out to seven years. One does not have to be a math scholar to know that that will amount to a 20 per cent to 25 per cent cut yearly if those funds are spread over a seven-year program instead of a five-year program. That is another wallop and kick in the tush for Atlantic Canada.
I have attempted five times to get the Minister and the Government to talk about the ERDA process, the Economic and Regional Development Agreements. On March 31 there were $721 million in agreements expired in Atlantic Canada. We asked the Government for a commitment that it would go ahead with the ERDA process. All provinces in Atlantic Canada depend on those programs. It is not the icing on the cake, it is the flour that goes into baking the cake in Atlantic Canada.
Yet the Minister responsible for ACOA at committee last week, and in the House since then, has absolutely refused to strip down the woods and the forest that he has built around the real figures for ACOA and for ERDA and tell us what the true picture is. The people of Atlantic Canada know, and the people of Canada now know that the Government is not committed to regional development. The Government is committed to dismantling regional development programs over the next three to five years.
We have seen base closures, and we have seen reports that the coal industry in Cape Breton Island is on the chopping block. Lingan Mine, outside my home town, may be cut by the Government's callous and uncaring attitude toward development in Atlantic Canada.
The Bill proves the point that I and many others have been attempting to make. In effect, the Bill does away with any legislative responsibility for regional development in Atlantic Canada. As such, I will join with my colleagues in stating that it falls short in its intent for a new Department of Industry, Science and Technology, but it shows the true Tory agenda to withdraw from regional development programs, especially in Atlantic Canada, and to cut us adrift.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity this afternoon to say a few words on the Bill before the House and the amendment thereto. I represent a riding in northern Ontario and the establishment of this Department, or its change of name, and the changes the Government is imposing, are of great importance to us.
During the past four years we have seen a deterioration in the programs for regional economic expansion in northern Ontario. The Government has only taken one initiative, of which I am aware, and that was to establish the FEDNOR program. It is a small program of some $8 million a year for a five-year period which will provide incentives to small industries to expand and develop. Generally, that program, at least in some rural communities and rural areas, has been reasonably successful, even though it took approximately two years to get it operational.
We are not only concerned about the small programs such as FEDNOR which have some benefit, particularly in rural communities, but the over-all plan and scope of activities which will make industry function and allow it to modernize, upgrade, develop, and of course the whole scope of Government activity as it affects the slow-growth areas.
I only have to mention the decision by the Government in December, 1986, to impose an export tax on softwood lumber, and one sees the problems of regional development which permeate all Government decisions. When a Government takes a unilateral decision to impose an export tax, it throws large portions of that industry into decline and into a tailspin. Certainly, we have been reaping the whirlwind of that during the past
May 24, 1989

several years. We have lost more than 1,000 jobs in northern Ontario. We have seen at least half a dozen mills shut down. Others have been sold and others have gone on short staff.
We have been pleading with the Government to go to Washington and sit down with the Secretary for Trade and negotiate away from that export tax. No single decision could help improve the lot for regional development in northern Ontario. We are concerned about the fact that we are involved with little incentive programs such as FEDNOR when we need to look at the whole range of Government programs.
Unfortunately, the Government has declined to get rid of the export tax on softwood lumber, although representations have been made by every important group in northern Ontario, including the FEDNOR Advisory Board. It is not only getting rid of the tax, but we must look at what the free trade deal implies. It seems to imply that major restructuring programs such as we had several years ago for the pulp and paper industry in which the federal and provincial Governments put in a few hundred million dollars and stimulated that whole industry across the country to modernize, upgrade, become cost effective, and to be able to meet the new environmental standards that were coming in.
Under the free trade deal, we seem to have lost the ability to be able to put in place massive restructuring programs such as that which took place in the pulp and paper industry some eight or ten years ago. From time to time, especially in slow-growth areas, every industry requires that restructuring. Certainly, if we want to see the softwood industry maintained in northern Ontario, we are facing that situation.
The agreements that we had under the Economic and Regional Development Program for the pulp and paper industry are needed in other sectors. A similar program is needed in the sawmill softwood lumber industry. We clearly need a new agreement in forestry. I cannot believe that the Budget does not make provision for a forestry agreement. It was a modest agreement that we had in Ontario, but even that agreement has been cut out. That is going right across the country. The ERDA Agreements are being downgraded. They are essential.
Industry, Science and Technology
Many of the levers for economic development, restructuring, reorganizing, and modernizing of industry are in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The only way to provide an impetus is through the federal Government and the ERDA Agreements. The Government is moving away from that through the Budget and the policies and downgrading or cutting out all of those funds which have been provided through the ERDA Agreements.
Not only are those agreements important in forestry, but also in tourism. In Ontario we have a tourism agreement. Unfortunately, it has not been used as broadly as it needs to be. With the downgrading of the ERDA Agreements and the removal of funding for them, I see us losing a valuable tool to bring federal Government resources, know-how, and funding to bear in areas of provincial jurisdiction and in areas of co-ordination. Not only am I concerned about this Bill, I am concerned about the Government's general approach to the whole matter of regional economic expansion. In the previous two years we fought the taxation reform in which the Government cut out most of the incentive for the earned depletion allowance and the flow-through share program for the mining industry.
It was in 1982 and 1983, when the economy was being dragged out of the recession years of 1981 and 1982, when we introduced a new earned depletion allowance and flow-through shares which provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars for exploration and development in the mining industry in areas like northern Ontario, northern Quebec, areas of the West and the East. That program has been emasculated by these tax reform measures.
Those types of incentives stimulate an entire industry, whether it is forestry, tourism or mining, which tend to be the industries most important to the slow growth areas of the country. They are all being wound down by the Government.
No matter whether this Bill is good or bad, unless the general policy of the Government through all its Departments and ERDA agreements takes the right direction, we cannot have an effective regional development program in Canada.


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

May 24, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology


Some Hon. Members:: Question


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.

And the bells having stopped ringing'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the Chief Opposition Whip has asked me to postpone the vote.
Therefore, pursuant to that Standing Order, the recorded vote on the question now before the House is deferred until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon when the division bells will ring for at most 15 minutes.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the Government has no further business to call at this time. Perhaps we could call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 25, 1989