1989-09-29

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a ligislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Department of Forestry. You may rest assured that I have no intention of voting against this Bill. It would be tantamount to voting against trees, or against nature, and I am not against nature any more than I am against motherhood or apple pie. I don't think you have any reason to worry about that. And I am sure my colleague opposite is delighted to see that I intend to support this Bill.

Canada needs Bill C-29 but, of course, it needs more than that bill. When I say that it needs Bill C-29, it needs it because the legislation will consolidate many government activities pertaining to forestry which are right now spread among a variety of different ministries. When I
say that it needs more than Bill C-29, or it needs Bill C-29 and much more, I mean that the forestry minister will not have much power under this legislation, simply because he or she will have to obtain funding from other departments in order to embark on federal-provincial reforestation programs, in order to arrive at agreements between the federal government and the provinces, and also in order to actually get the funding to do his job as a minister.
I am going to touch on the federal-provincial agreements in a moment, but first I would like to talk about an experience in my own constituency.

Mr. Speaker, about 50 kilometres from Ottawa, in the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, there is a forest, the Larose Forest, which covers a hundred square kilometres and where 18 million trees have been planted, most of them by hand. All this was the work of a genius by the name Ferdinand Larose. In 1900, Mr. Larose, a resident of the area and agronomist for the counties of Prescott and Russell, had the brillant idea, Mr. Speaker, to start a reforestation project in what could be called the desert area of Bourget. This area southeast of Ottawa had become practically barren as a result of erosion and other factors.
Mr. Speaker, a tree planting program started in 1928. The program continues today, and Larose Forest is now the largest reforestation project in Ontario.

It bears repeating that near this city we have the largest man-made forest in Ontario, only some 50 kilometres from Parliament Hill. If you can imagine that visionary agronomer, Mr. Larose, who in 1928, particularly given his profession, was telling farmers to get off the land, to sell it to the government so it could be replanted with trees. Needless to say, there were probably some people in the community who wanted to chase that gentleman right out of town for coming up with a scheme like that.

Government Orders
Imagine what the people in the village, the merchants, and so on, were thinking, when farms that were previously occupied became vacant at the encouragement of this man Ferdinand Larose. It seems, in retrospect of course, that he was right. He had the bright idea of creating this forest in an area which was practically a desert.
I said moments ago that I would come back to this issue of reforestation and federal-provincial agreements. The reason I want to bring this to your attention is as follows: The Canada-Ontario Forest Resource Development Agreement, or COFRDA for short, has now expired. That agreement which was in place contributed to the tune of $150 million to reforestation programs in the province of Ontario. It was because of programs such as COFRDA and others in the past that the replanting of the Larose forest and probably many other similar projects were made possible.
As we are here discussing the creation of a new department of forestry-which I favour of course-I cannot help but condemn the government for the fact that forestry has suffered an 11.9 per cent cutback in 1989-1990.1 am sure the Minister of Transport is terribly upset by this and that the cause of this, of course, is the budgetary cutbacks inflicted upon these departments by the Minister of Finance who is sitting almost immediately in front of me.

Mr. Speaker, forty-seven person-years were cut in this ministry, a reduction of 3.5 per cent. Today, we are talking about establishing a department of forestry but I think we should recall that, under the Tory Government, there has been no particular concern for our forests, and in fact there have been major cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about COFRDA, the agreement which has expired and which I hope the Minister of Finance, who is listening attentively, will negotiate with his provincial counterpart and renew that federal-provincial agreement, COFRDA, with the province of Ontario.
Let me tell the Minister what this has created in our province. I invite him, by the way, to come and visit the Larose forest, 50 kilometers east of Ottawa. He can jump in his limousine and I will show him this forest. I
will gladly do it this afternoon as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. But let me tell you of some of the benefits of this agreement.
Over the last five years in the province of Ontario COFRDA has accomplished the regeneration of 110,000 hectares of land; the tending of 59,000 acres; the site preparation of 113,000 acres; and the purchase of 165 million tree seedlings. Indeed, COFRDA has contributed tremendously toward the reforstation of our province.
Unfortunately, the time allocated to MPs to speak today is shorter than usual and I will have to conclude my remarks very soon. I will not be able to further state to the minister how important it is for him to contribute to this federal-provincial agreement in Ontario. I hope that I have gone some distance in convincing him, and I know that my colleagues will continue to do so over the next few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to say that today in Larose Forest, the trees are about 100 feet high. Those beautiful trees, the white pine we see in our area, were planted thanks to people with vision. People like Ferdinand Larose, people who wanted to make a contribution and who knew it was important to preserve this forest and to replant it.
My message to the House and especially to the Minister of Finance is that the Government should stop these cuts in the forestry department and enter into an agreement as soon as possible with the province of Ontario and other provinces who also need them, so that we can keep up the good work done by Ferdinand Larose and other Canadian pioneers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: I was under the impression this morning that we had an agreement whereby the 20 minute slots would be split in two and that two consecutive members of the same party would be recognized. That is why I cut my remarks to 10 minutes rather than 20 under the assumption that my colleague would be recognized. If the member is proceeding with questions and comments at the present time, I apologize for interrupting.
September 29, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have had that type of agreement earlier this week. To my knowledge, I do not believe we have had it today. I will ask the chief government whip.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I was not party to any discussions, but I was at a meeting this morning. My understanding was that we would follow the normal opposition day rotation but on a 10 minute speech with a five-minute question period. Rather than dividing the 20-minute period it would be 10, 10, 10 with a five minute question period. That seems to be agreeable to the house.


Don Boudria: I am quite agreeable to that. It is just that I do not believe it was said that this was questions and comments, therefore, I mistakenly assumed that the member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) was in fact making a speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill on the same point of order.


Mr. Murphy:: We actually want full debate on this issue. We do not want any shortening of the speeches.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Would the NDP have any objection to any other party in the house then taking the normal 20 minute rotation and dividing it between two people with 10 minutes each? They are insisting without unanimous consent we cannot change the rules of the house, but maybe we could have unanimous consent in the Chamber to take the 20 minute allocation to a spokesperson for a party and at the party's own arrangements divide it between two people, 10 minutes each with five minute questions. Is that agreeable? In that manner they could keep their 20 minute speeches for their individual members.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We have no qualms with the other parties dividing their time whichever way they want as long as we keep our 20 minutes in the normal rotation and use it for full speeches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I correct in believing that today, contrary to the other days this week, and we can take the example of the Liberal Party, they will use the 20 minutes as they see fit, and at the end of 20 minutes, a 10 minute question and comment period. There will not be ten-five, ten-five. It will be 20 among two or three speakers. Very well.
Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue at hand. I am very pleased to speak on this legislation before us. I say that because it has been long overdue. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the Department of Forestry in the 1984 general election. We thought, on this side of the house, that he had forgotten, but luckily his memory came back.
Bill C-29 will, in part, restore faith in the forest industry that it has not been overlooked. The industry will be assured of a voice at the cabinet table. While this legislation creates a new department of forestry, there remain a few questions which we need to have addressed.
One of the main concerns with this piece of legislation is the lack of an adequate budget. The department of forestry saw its 1989-90 budget cut by 11.9 per cent. This does not seem fair as other natural resource programs received increases in their budgets.
It seems to me that the government is not committed to providing leadership in the development of one of Canada's most precious resource. The government needs to inject more funds into this new department if Canada is to become a leading nation in the area of reforestation.
At a time when Canada lags behind in reforestation, what does the government do? It cuts the forestry budget and slashes 47 person-years along with it. The forestry department will need increased funds and staff resources in order to catch up with other leading nations. The creation of a new forestry department must go hand in hand with adequate financial resources. Furthermore, the Minister of Forestry must be given total control over the future of his department. It will not work if he has to go to other departments and agencies for funding.
Canada's forestry industry makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy. Canada has the second largest stock of softwood lumber in the world after the U.S.S.R. It is the third largest producer of softwood lumber products after the United States and the U.S.S.R. It is the largest exporter of lumber products: one third of its pulp exports, 63 per cent of its newsprint and nearly half of its lumber. These are significant statistics and we must look at what the government has done to this vital sector of the Canadian economy.

Government Orders
In 1986, after mounting pressure from the United States, the government decided to impose a 15 per cent export tax on all softwood lumber products. This measure has been a sore spot for the forest industiy. In northern Ontario the 15 per cent export tax has had a devastating effect on the softwood lumber industiy. It has also caused some concern to the 30 single industiy towns that need this resource for employment.
In February of this year members of the northern Ontario Liberal caucus travelled extensively in order to hear firsthand from the lumber industry, labour, and municipal governments. The witnesses repeatedly told us that the 15 per cent export tax will continue to force closures and lay-offs. We were told that the expansion and modernization projects have had to be put on hold because of this situation.
There have been some major economic changes since the imposition of this export tax which warrant a review of the situation. The U.S. dollar has depreciated by more than 18 per cent. There has been an increase in Ontario stumpage and area charges. Canadian exports are lower than they were pre-1986 and the lumber industry is faced with depressed prices.
The task force was told by industry representatives that with the signing of the free trade agreement the softwood lumber export tax should not exist in the free trade environment. McKenzie Forest Products in Sioux Lookout, a very large industiy and a large company in my riding, kept four trucks busy hauling finished softwood lumber products to the Minneapolis-St. Paul market just to the south of my riding. When the 15 per cent export tax was imposed, this market was lost. Now McKenzie Forest Products ships its lumber to southern Ontario.
The additional transportation charges have eroded profits it would have otherwise received had it been able to keep the U.S. market. The imposition of a further 9 per cent on transportation services under the goods and services tax will further erode potential profits. I suspect that we will see further sawmill closures and many more lay-offs as a result.
The government must demonstrate leadership in the area of reforestation and management of this resource. The forest is capable of providing employment for many future generations if the will of the government is such. To quote a representative from Canadian Pacific Forest
Products in Dryden: "It was a political decision to initiate the 15 per cent countervailing duty, so it will take a political solution to remove it". For the small, rural and northern regional economies, it is imperative that this government support the softwood lumber industry by eliminating this export charge.
I read in the July 27 edition of The Ottawa Citizen that the Minister of Forestry stated that his department has prepared a proposal which would be sent to the Americans to end the export tax. The minister was quoted in the article as stating that he would present them with a proposition to test the ground before we send them a termination notice.
This was a welcome statement, but I find it kind of scary because we do not know what the Americans will say. We ask the Minister, will he succumb to U.S. pressure once again, or will he demonstrate leadership by telling the Americans that we cannot agree with this tax in the spirit of the free trade agreement? He, as Minister of Forestry, has a responsibility to Canada's forests and the industiy.
A year ago this month a green ribbon review was held at the Great Lakes Forestry Centre in Sault Ste. Marie to look at the achievements and impacts of the Canada- Ontario Forest Resource Development Agreement. The review concluded that the agreement has had significant impacts on Ontario forests. There has been more forest management activity and employment because of it. The agreements have also ensured the viability of the forest industry, especially in northern Ontario where the economic survival of some 30 communities is directly dependent on the forest industry.
When the Province of Ontario signed the Forest Resource Development Agreement in 1984, it made a long-term commitment to managing a sustainable forest resource. The federal government's inaction is jeopardizing forest renewal programs in six provinces. It is undoing everything that has been achieved in the last five years if it persists in delaying the renewal of these agreements.
In 1987, the National Forest Sector Strategy, endorsed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers and Canada's First Ministers, urged this government to continue its spending commitments to forest resource development agreements with the provinces.

Maybe the government needs to be reminded of the forestry agreement achievements in Ontario over the past five years. As well as providing nearly one quarter of the funds for Ontario's regeneration program, the agreement helped to improve management practices on private woodlots and it has promoted integrated resource management for multiple use.
The agreement helped build some 300 kilometres of access roads which are vital to forest renewal operations. More important, the agreement funded forest management projects with 40 Ontario Indian bands. This has led to jobs for the aboriginal people. Ontario has a proud record of achievements as a result of the forestry agreement. Approximately 80 per cent of its forest management program is delivered by the private sector. Nurseries, tree planting, and road building are examples. There is no question that the Canada-Ontario agreement has played a key role in stimulating private sector involvement.
In a speech to the Ontario Forestry Association's annual meeting in February 1989, the then Natural Resources Minister for Ontario said, and I quote: "We cannot sustain this momentum without a new development agreement. Without it and without the continuity that a new agreement would provide, we jeopardize our future achievements and future gains. Without the federal contribution the amount of forest we regenerate each year simply will not be as high." By continuing to refuse to negotiate a new agreement the federal government will further damage its already tarnished reputation internationally.
The signing of a new Canada-Ontario Forest Resource Development agreement is vital to the economy of many small communities in my riding, many of which depend solely on the forest industry. In the Auditor General's report to Parliament, he urged that Canada's forest renewal efforts be strengthened with more funds and better management. He warned that Canada is not getting ahead in renewing its forests, despite sharp increases in provincial funding and co-operative cost sharing agreements. The provinces and the forestry industry need a long-term commitment from this government in the areas of forest regeneration and sustainable development. Canada's forests can continue to provide economic benefits and employment for genera-
Govemment Orders
tions to come, if they are properly managed. The Minister of Forestry must move quickly before Canadian forests suffer irreparable damage.
In order for the new Department of Forestry to achieve its goals in managing Canada's most precious natural resource, it must be provided with adequate funding and staff resources.
I urge the Minister of Forestry to talk to his colleagues and allow them to act responsibly on behalf of the people of Canada so that future generations of this country will have the kind of forests and forest regeneration that it needs.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for his unconditional support for the Forestry Bill. I also urge him to ask his colleagues, especially those who will sit on the legislative committee, to deal with this legislation very quickly so that it can be passed as soon as possible.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Mr. Speaker, was concerned that the federal Government seemed to be forgetting about forests, at least according to him.
I would simply remind him that from 1984 until today, the federal Government-that is, the Progressive Conservative Government-has increased its budgets for silviculture by over 300 per cent. I think that is concrete action that should be pointed out, especially by our colleagues opposite.
I know that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and his colleague boasted about the Cana-da-Ontario agreement. I must remind them, however, that this agreement was signed by the Progressive Conservative Government.
Also, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell is concerned about the effect the new Department will have. I would remind him that the new Department-that is, the one now represented by the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle)-will no longer be a Department of State; therefore, it will report directly to the Prime Minister.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
Moreover, the Forestry Bill is intended first and foremost to update the regulations on wood under which Forestry Canada manages forest areas together with other federal Departments.
The new Bill will also make it possible to extend the application of these regulations beyond experimental forest areas. It will enable the Minister and the Department-and I think it is important for my colleagues opposite to understand this-to conclude agreements with individuals, organizations and governments. I refer to the famous forestry development agreements with each province. The Minister will be authorized to do so, as provided in clause 9 of the Bill.
It also provides for the tabling in the House of an annual report on the status of forestry resources and their contribution to the Canadian economy.
Also, Mr. Speaker, what is new with the Department is that under its mandate, it will oversee the development and coordination of forestry policies and programs nationally. It will also carry out and encourage forestry research and development. We know how important research and development are for the future and survival of Canadian forestry, both for local and for export markets.
So in summarizing these facts, I think in all sincerity and honesty, beyond partisanship, Mr. Speaker, that our Liberal and New Democratic colleagues will make it their duty to act diligently, first, to complete second reading and, second, to move quickly and smoothly in the legislative committee to have this Bill passed as soon as possible. For as both Liberals and New Democrats have said so well, we need this legiation as soon as possible so that the Forestry Department can have a free hand in its negotiations with the federal Departments concerned with forestry and with the provinces and the whole industry, for the sake of the harmonious development of forestry in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question. Perhaps it was just a comment.

I should like to respond to some of the points raised by my colleague opposite.
First, concerning co-operation on the part of the Official Opposition to pass this measure at the earliest opportunity, the fact that we have readily agreed to reduce our speeches by half so as to speed up the process is, I would suggest, a sure sign of the good faith of the Official Opposition. What we want of course is to give Members who have significant observations to make to do just that without unduly delaying the Bill. This is why we too have shortened our speeches.

In terms of the federal government commitment to forestry, the member has stated that there were federal-provincial agreements and that the minister was empowered to continue working at them. But I want to repeat what I said before. Since last summer, there is no such thing as a federal-provincial agreement on forestry for the province of Ontario. The previous one was in the area of $150 million over five years, toward replanting forests, projects such as the one I described in my own riding. Right now there is no money. The Minister of Finance is sitting right across from us and I hope he is listening attentively to this. I hope he instructs his colleagues to get on with it and to provide the province of Ontario with the federal government participation so we can continue doing so.
In terms of the federal government's commitment toward forestry, it is contrary to what we have just heard. I will just give you one instance of lack of commitment. The newly created independent forestry budget was reduced from $235 million to $207 million. I believe this is for the province of British Columbia. That is a net cut here of some $28 million. That is not what I call commitment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois).


Mr. Langlois:: Mr. Speaker, just a brief remark to remind my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that, pursuant to clause 9, one of the responsibilities of the Minister will be to enter into agreements or arrangements with any person, body or government. He will have enough authority to discharge his duties. This means that the Minister may enter into agreements with the provinces, including agreements similar to ERDA subsidiary agreements. He can exercise that power with the approval of the Governor in Council.
September 29, 1989

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say in passing that the federal Government has just concluded agreements with New Brunswick under which the province will receive $91 million. It had received $77 million under the previous agreement, so this is a considerable increase in the federal Government's share in the development of forestry in New Brunswick. Similarly, Nova Scotia will get $45 million under a two-year agreement, again a significant increase over the funding made available under previous agreements.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the new Minister and his department will have full authority so sign agreements and support the growth of Canada's forest sector.


Don Boudria: In response to that argument, which was also directed to me, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Minister can sign agreements with the province, but he has to go to another department, and that is even worse, he has to go to a number of departments to get the money. Yes, but this works out to the same thing. The minister may sign any agreement he likes, but in the case of agreements where funds are not involved, he needs authority. That is not very good. The fact is that the entire exercise is directed by others, not by the department. Here is an example. In the case of an agreement with the Atlantic provinces, the Minister of Public Works will be authorized to release the funds. In the case of the western provinces it will be the Minister responsible for grains. In the case of Ontario the purse strings will be held by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Member for Calgary. That is the way things work under the new legislation, Mr. Speaker, so it is not perfect by any means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there has been further consultations among the parties in the House of Commons. I think you would find that there is unanimous consent if we could make one slight modification to the rules that we agreed to change this morning.
All parties have indicated that it would be preferable to have 10-minute speeches, where those parties wish to have 10-minute speeches or two 10-minute speeches consecutively, but in those instances we would follow each speech with five minutes of questions and com-
Govemment Orders
ments at the end of every one of the two consecutive speakers of that party, rather than having a combination of questions to two different members at the end, the way we have had for the last 40 minutes or so. I believe that all parties have given their agreement to that. Of course this does not oblige any party to having 10-minute speeches. They can continue having a full 20-minute speech followed by 10 minutes of questions and answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton East.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with some general comments on the bill, by noting that it was in fact the New Democrats who proposed a separate ministry of forestry in 1983.1 note as well that in 1984 the leader of the Liberal Party at the time opposed that suggestion by the New Democrats. I am glad to see that in the intervening five years the Liberals have come around to see the wisdom of the New Democrat position. It happens from time to time. In fact the Canadian political historic record shows that it happens quite often.
I would note as well that the Conservative Party promised a forestry department in the 1984 election. Obviously certain contingencies intervened and they were, how shall I put this, prevented from making good on that promise in the entire period of their first term. So, they were in the happy position of being able to use the promise again in the 1988 election, which of course they did, and I must say to their credit this time they have acted upon it. This is sufficient to render it not quite but almost unique in that entire panoply of promises that the Conservatives advanced at the 1988 general election.
However, we went through that first term of Tory government from 1984 to 1988 and it was drag, drag, drag. There was no action on the creation of a department whatsoever. Now, in its second term, it seems incredibly hasty in pushing this bill through the Commons as quickly as it can. It is a remarkable turnabout, and one that the New Democrats at least are not terribly comfortable with. As my dear grandmother used instruct me as well-she was a very wise woman-anything worth doing is worth doing well.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
So, instead of rushing this bill through the House, we New Democrats would suggest that at the very least thorough consideration ought to be accorded it in this House. As well, we would sincerely suggest along with many other interested Canadians that a range of public consultations on the bill be undertaken.
If I may, I would like to quote from the September 1989, No. 23 Newsletter of the Canadian Institute of Forestry where they note that the CIF recommends that there be public consultation in developing the new forestry act. Obviously that recommendation is no longer actionable. However, they recommend further:
-that the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries be given legislative responsibility for review of the proposed legislation and that the committee hold public hearings in Ottawa and across the country. In this way interested groups and individuals will have an opportunity to make their views known concerning the federal role in the forestry sector.
A most admirably sensible suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and one which, if the government is serious about producing the best possible department of forestry, I am certain it will want to pursue.
Such consultations can be especially important given recent events and the growing importance of forestry in areas not previously known for it, like my home province of Alberta. There are huge new projects being proposed especially in the pulp and paper realm in the province of Alberta. In their wake, these new projects are creating growing environmental concerns.
Among those developments, in the light of which this bill and this new forestry department must be seen, are the unfortunate cut-backs in federal funding for forestry related matters that we have experienced. As was reported in that national newspaper The Globe and Mail on May 17 of this year the minister himself said that, excluding FRDAs his department will have $207 million to spend this year. This is nearly a $28 million drop from forestry expenditures last year.
I understand the members across the way have been arguing that this is not a cut-back, that in fact this is an enhancement. Such a cavalier approach to the English language do them no credit but we will, of course, leave it to their constituents this instance.
In the same story the hon. minister is reported as saying that funds for FDRAs would come from general regional development allocations, themselves slated for cuts. So even in this instance we have a bit of trouble with the usage across the way.
Finally, it is noted that the Western Diversification Agency will bear responsibility for funding the FRDAs with the provinces which fall within the jurisdiction of that agency. In total, the finance minister's budget papers showed a drop from $1.4 billion for regional development spending-and this with regard to the Western Diversification Office-during the current 1989-90 fiscal year to about $1 billion annually over the next four years. The government may argue if it wishes that this is not a cut, but I think it will have trouble convincing Canadians of that.
As well, even allowing that there is substantial but reduced funding for FRDAs out there, it must be borne in mind that that funding is to be delivered through the regional development vehicles and through the FRDAs. We have a situation in which as of March 31 this year, six Forestry Resource Development Agreements have expired. These are with my home province of Alberta, with Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick-a new deal has been agreed to in principle with New Brunswick, it must be noted-and with Nova Scotia, for a total of $420 million.
The programs and jobs related to these programs are thereby threatened. It is greatly to be hoped, in fact it is reasonably to be expected, that the programs will be renewed. It is greatly to be hoped that they will be enhanced. But we have no guarantee of that. Such a guarantee must be forthcoming if we are to take the government's protestations about its desires for a new forestry department seriously. New Democrats have been vigorous in calling for the renewal of these programs. We will continue to be vigorous to that end.
There is another factor in light of which the growing importance of forestry and the proposal for the establishment of a forestry department must be viewed. That is the serious concern that establishing this new department will not be accompanied by the changes necessary to make it a sufficiently significant player within the ranks of the government.
September 29, 1989

The Conservative Government is using new agencies to act as the vehicle for federal-provincial economic development agreements, including the FDRAs. In my part of the country, that is, as I have noted, the Western Diversification Office. It controls funding for forestry programs in western Canada and the FDRAs are funded out of the WDO budget.
The forestry minister has to seek funds from western Diversification before he can negotiate with provinces to establish agreements. In other words, the decision-making power over who will get FDRAs and what those FDRAs will contain does not rest with the minister. In the first instance, that decision rests with the Western Diversification Office, which it must be noted has a great deal else on its plate. So what does this tell us about the importance that this government places on its new department and its minister? It tells us that it and he are second string. That is unfortunate because the economic ministries are sort of second-level treasury boards, and the minister has to deal with them for funding of his major programs.
The New Democrats are insistent that the department of forestry must have direct control over its own programs and its own initiatives. There is no substitute for this if we are to take the government's program at all seriously.
There are problems with the bill. There are problems with the department that the bill proposes to create. It is nothing that cannot be fixed. It is not an irreversible situation. But the government must listen, and not just to us on the opposition benches. The government must listen to the people of Canada, especially those with direct interest in forestry, if it is to improve this bill as it must be improved before it becomes law. But the government must listen, not just to us on the opposition benches, but to the people of Canada, especially those with a direct interest in forestry, if they are to improve this bill, as it must be improved, before it becomes law.
While we are on the topic of forestry, and given the importance of this issue in Alberta and the likelihood that there will not be many chances to address this issue in the House at this sitting, I would like to mention a few related matters that concern my constituents and the people of Alberta generally.
Government Orders
The forestry projects that are coming in Alberta, especially the major pulp and paper projects, have been the subject of considerable concern in that province. The Daishowa plant near Peace River is to be constructed with the help of a $9.5 million contribution from the Western Diversification Office. When this plant proposal was announced, many people were concerned that there had not been a proper environmental assessment review. They were right, there had not been. There were no public hearings.
The company prepared an environmental report, an impact statement, for the provincial environment department. The report did not even consider the cumulative effects on Alberta's environment of the contribution that the Daishowa plant would make to pollution in the province in light of that pollution which will be contributed by all the other proposed plants and those currently in place.
In fact, there are, as a consequence of that cumulative effect, which it is reasonable to anticipate, serious concerns about the biological oxygen demand levels in the rivers affected, principally the Athabasca river, but as well the Peace river, and about the dioxin and furan emissions from those plants. Since there was no proper environmental impact assessment, construction went ahead without these concerns being heard, much less addressed. In fact, Daishowa was granted a forestry management agreement for the mill on land claimed by the Lubicon people who are currently in the midst of a very serious, lengthy dispute with the federal government. The Daishowa plant was granted land out from underneath them; a most serious development and one that does neither of the governments involved any credit whatsoever.
I should note that one of the other major mills being proposed for Alberta is the Alberta-Pacific mill, which is to be located on the Athabasca river. The review by Alberta-Pacific was, it must be said, much better than the review undertaken by Daishowa. There is, for example, a joint federal-provincial co-operative approach to environmental assessment in this instance.
In fact, I will quote from the release of the Minister of Environment Canada, Release No. PR-HQ-089-34, dated July 19, in Ottawa.
He notes that he and Mr. Klein announced a federal-provincial environmental review of the proposed Alberta-Pacific kraft paper mill in northern Alberta. He said that the terms of reference of the review board will emphasize the need to assess cumulative impacts from the Alberta-Pacific and other mills on all downstream interests.

September 29, 1989
There we have it, a reasonable approach in this instance, assuming the review to be a thorough and effective one. What was lacking in Daishowa in this regard, at least, we find at Alberta-Pacific, and that is a good thing because there remain serious concerns.
I would note, as well that under this review for Alberta-Pacific, public hearings will be held. Their effect is yet to be judged, but the hearings themselves will be held. Intervener funding will be offered and, as I said, the cumulative effects of the mills on the river system is to be examined.
Why is that so important? It is because there are very, very serious concerns about the cumulative effect of biological oxygen demand occasioned by the operations of these pulp mills. In fact, just in the last week, the Alberta environment department released the results of an 18-month study on the Athabasca river that forecast that the river's oxygen level will stay above Alberta's set requirements for oxygen levels in that river only if stringent new standards are implemented and followed.
There are environmental groups in the province, including the Alberta Fish and Game Association, who are convinced that the measures proposed by Alberta environment are themselves inadequate. But one thing is clear, unless pulp mills are stringently regulated and are subject to the most rigorous environmental standards, the consequences both in northern Alberta and in the territories right up to the Arctic can be catastrophic.
It is this sort of thing, as well, that I would suggest any new forestry department must take into account as part of its mandate. The effects on the forestry industry are every bit as much an attribute of the forestry industry as are the revenues that that industry can generate. The department must understand that, and the department must incorporate that into its mandate.
There are other things that any such new department must consider. There are questions that generally revolve around the sustainability of forestry as an industry in Canada, questions that incorporate considerations like cutting practices. I am certain many of the members of this House who have had the opportunity to drive the beautiful mountain highways of Alberta and British Columbia during our delightful summer months have seen the incredibly panoramic vistas before them as they drive those highways, and have noted huge sides of
mountains stripped of trees, indeed, of virtually all vegetation rising more than a foot or so above the surface. This is clear cutting, and it is an environmentally hazardous practice, especially in sensitive watersheds. Yet clear cutting remains the dominant-to use the industry's term-harvesting technique in Canadian forestry. This is an especially difficult problem in Alberta because ours are poor grey-wooded soils where the main forest harvest is to occur, and those soils are especially sensitive to the impact of clear cutting.
Among the things this department must do, Mr. Speaker, is examine and indeed facilitate and foster alternatives to clear cutting. We must look at the diversification of those products that we take from our forests. There is a vast range of products that now can be created from forestry, not just board lumber and not just pulp and paper. The department's mandate should include efforts, in current vernacular, to "sus out" those alternatives and popularize them.
Finally, it should be noted that in our urban areas we already have forests of paper merely waiting to be recycled. And that, too, is a legitimate concern of the forestry department.
New Democrats do support this bill. We support the creation of a department of forestry and have done so for many years. But the Bill does not go quite far enough. The forestry department, as envisioned in this bill, is not quite sufficiently effective. There are changes that must be made and which are perfectly worthy of study by the Standing Committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will have the question and comment period, after Question Period. It being 11 o'clock, we will now proceed with Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on October 25, in Costa Rica at a meeting of the countries of the western hemisphere, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is expected to make an announcement

that will forever change the face of Canadian foreign policy with respect to Latin America. For decades now, countries such as Mexico and the Caribbean Islands, who are members of the Organization of American States, have asked Canada to join in the hope that their concerns would be better represented than they are by the government in Washington. Canada has steadfastly refused, as the Organization has been perceived as merely an extension of American foreign policy and our membership in it may serve to compromise our independence regarding our own relationship with member countries.
Growing Canadian trade and a trend towards democracy may, indeed, be good reasons to re-evaluate our past positions. Any re-evaluation, however, should be done in consultation with Canadian groups and agencies across Canada who work very closely with member countries and therefore would have invaluable input into the final decisions. This is a very important change in the direction for our country.
I urge the Prime Minister to seriously consider not making a decision on this issue until we are able, possibly in the External Affairs Committee, to study whether it is in our interests and whether it is in the interests of member countries for us to join the OAS.


UKRAINE
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, after having recently spent some time in the Soviet Union and particularly in Ukraine, I was able to observe the positive developments of Mr. Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost. There is now a window of opportunity to show Canadian support for those changes taking place in the Soviet Union.
At the present time, Canadian businessmen are travelling in Ukraine and are considering joint ventures in Ukrainian enterprises. Therefore, on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union and Ukraine, I strongly encourage him to take that opportunity to
announce the opening of a Canadian consulate in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. This would follow an earlier decision of West Germany to do so. The Canadian counsulate would facilitate tourism and cultural and economic exchanges with that part of the Soviet Union and would show support for Mr. Gorbachev's policies.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this week, for reasons known only to themselves, the Canadian Auto Workers, through some representatives, have garnered considerable publicity in Nova Scotia with threats to block National Sea Products trucks from exporting unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia.
Export trade, particularly to the United States, is the backbone of the Atlantic fishery. If Canada wishes to participate in trade with GATT nations, like it or lump it, Canada must abide by GATT rules.
If the CAW can write a law or a regulation that would prevent the export of unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia and is GATT consistent, then I and many others would welcome it. Such activity would be far more helpful to the people of Lockport than irresponsible actions which can only serve to scare off potential investors from CAW plants.


REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to the crisis in the Republic of Armenia in the Soviet Union, crisis caused by the almost total blockade imposed by its neighbour, the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Almost all supplies in Armenia must pass through Azerbaijan. Because of this blockade, industry is paralysed, oil has run out, rebuilding from the earthquake is coming to a halt, and food and other necessities are in increasingly short supply.



This reprehensible blockade stems from the persistent dispute over control of the Ngomo-Karabagh region. The population of Ngomo-Karabagh is comprised predominantly of ethnic Armenians and they have expressed their desire and determination to be reunited with Soviet Armenia.
The U.S.S.R. Government has been at best ineffective in resolving this dispute. We implore it to act quickly to end the blockade of Armenia and to work for a solution which will ensure the security and respect the fundamental rights of the Armenian people. We strongly encourage Mr. Gorbachev to talk seriously with representatives of the Ngomo-Karabagh regarding their demand for reunification with their Armenian homeland.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to point out in the House today that thanks to the economic policies of our Government and the cooperation that now exists with the provincial Government, the region of Sept-Iles in my riding was selected as the site for an aluminum smelter. This project, which involves a private investment of $1.3 billion, will create nearly 2,000 construction jobs and provide permanent employment for almost 700 workers.
The Alouette Inc. aluminum project^ came about because of the determination of the Sept-Iles community, the willingness of German, Austrian, Dutch, Japanese and Quebec investors and the participation of the federal Government in developing port facilities.
Mr. Speaker, that is a fine example of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments and private capital which is giving my region an unprecedented economic boost!


WITHDRAWAL OF VIETNAMESE TROOPS FROM CAMBODIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as preoccupied as we have been in Parliament in the last week with rising taxes and disappearing trains, it is important for members of Parliament to raise their heads and pause for a moment at greater tragedies happening around the world. This morning I would like to point in particular to the withdrawal this week of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia without any ceasefire or internal settlement, leaving the fear and the potential crisis of a new civil war emerging in that tragic country.
Canadians will remember the horrifying reports of the killing of over a million people at the hands of the Khmer Rouge just a few short years ago. With the coming of the dry season, the potential of a new civil war emerging looms large.
For our part, Canada has been invited to act as a member of an observer team, and while western nations have been reluctant to join in without a comprehensive agreement, it does not mean we should stand idly by without making some real effort to find a resolution to the tragic conflict.
We hope that at the meetings this week in the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will use the good offices of this country to remind western nations of our responsibility and will do everything we can to avoid another conflict in that tragic but very lovely country.


CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the House to recognize on the last sitting day of September that this month has been declared to be Child Abuse Prevention Month by the Independent Order of Foresters, IOF.
During September, the IOF has undertaken an awareness raising effort in communities across Canada in order to diminish the problem of child abuse. Child abuse, like other forms of family violence, is an issue of grave concern, not only to the federal government but
September 29, 1989

to all Canadians. Prevention of this horrible crime is our ultimate goal. The goal can only be realized through the concerted efforts of many partners, including the federal government, the provinces, the territories, community groups, professionals in the field and, most important, aware and informed parents.
The Independent Order of Foresters is to be commended for its efforts this month in helping the public recognize the problem of child abuse and for offering positive steps toward solving it.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, lives will be lost and time wasted if the federal government goes ahead with plans to shut down search and rescue operations at Canadian Forces Base Summerside. Two retired senior officers of the Canadian Armed Forces have told us this.
Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Hopping, who commanded the search and rescue squadron from 1981 to 1984, said the move from Prince Edward Island makes no sense from an operational point of view. Major Gary Naylor, who was commander of the rescue co-ordination centre in Halifax, said he expressed similar concerns in a letter to the Minister of National Defence last spring and received no reply.
Both men pointed to a major report on defence tabled in 1982 which identifies Summerside as the optimum site for search and rescue operations in Atlantic Canada, an opinion the federal government appeared to support until last spring. We know that in April the federal government announced its intention to close the base and to move search and rescue out of Summerside. This is a crippling blow to Summerside, wiping out 2,900 jobs.
A time when the fishery on the east coast is in crisis, a time when the social security net, the unemployment insurance, is being dismantled by this government, is no time to play with the lives of fishermen and mariners in the north Atlantic. I call on the Government of Canada to do the sensible thing, the wise thing, to restore search and rescue to P.E.I. and give the people back their jobs.


NATIONAL PAROLE SYSTEM
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much regret that I inform the House of yet another instance when our national parole system has failed us. In the 1960s Blaire Donald Johnson was convicted of murder with malice in the United States. Again in 1980, this time in Canada, he was convicted of rape.
In August of this year he was released on full parole. Less than one month has passed since the approval of his full release and he has struck again. Six days ago in my B.C. riding of Fraser Valley East he was charged with unlawful confinement and sexual assault.
Clearly we live in a dangerous world which warrants strong measures in order to protect the public. In this case, the current system has failed. How was it that a twice convicted violent criminal was allowed out on our streets? How was it that the current system allowed this man to slip through? The parole board cannot be easily perfected, but perhaps at this time its parole procedures could be re-evaluated. Therefore, I call upon the Solicitor General to look into this matter and put an end to such preventable crimes in the future.


BILL C-21
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, the public hearings on Bill C-21, which changes the Unemployment Insurance Act, have been concluded. There has emerged from these hearings one common theme expressed by cities, community groups, national organizations and private citizens alike in reaction to these changes and that is one of anger.
The government's claim that it was introducing these changes in order to make unemployment insurance fair has been shown for what it really is, an attempt to punish the victims of the system. Time after time, government members of the committee referred to polls showing that Canadians think unemployment insurance is abused, in spite of the minister's statement that abuse was not an issue.

There is an abuser of the unemployment insurance system and it is the government through this act. Increasing the qualifying period is an abuse of the victims of the government's failed economic policies. Decreasing the length of benefit periods is an abuse of the victims of the government's failed right-wing agenda. Doubling the penalty for women who have to quit their jobs because of sexual harassment or because they have to meet the needs of their children is an abuse of Canadian women.
Canadians have told the government in no uncertain terms that these changes to the unemployment insurance system are immoral.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that, thanks to the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, Ontario-based Arriscraft Corporation has decided to build an ultra-modem plant in Quebec rather than in New England.
Next spring Arriscraft will build in Saint-Etienne-des-Gres in my riding of Saint-Maurice a $12 million calcium silicate brick factory.
That decision to choose Quebec over the United States shows once again this Government's economic foresight.

From the great city of Cambridge, Ontario to St-Etienne-des-Gres in my riding, Arriscraft Corporation will now be able to compete in the north American market and also succeed.


DREDGING OF ST. CLAIR RIVER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a serious matter directly affecting the health of thousands of Canadians in southwestern Ontario. The Great Lakes Water Quality Board says that river and lake bottom sediments are huge reservoirs of pollutants. Now the government is dredging up these materials from the St. Clair River and dumping them in 15 feet of water in Lake St. Clair.
Today the Walpole Island First Nation announced that it is seeking an injunction requiring the federal government to cease all dredging of these potentially hazardous materials from the bottom of the St. Clair River until a full environmental assessment is completed. This project has been undertaken without an environmental impact study and without consulting the Walpole Island Nation whose people rely on the river and lake for their traditional economy.
I and the Member for Kent ask the government to stop this dredging unless and until a full environmental assessment shows it is safe to do so. I and the Member for Kent ask the government to show more concern for the health and safety of the thousands of Canadians living in the vicinity of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River) Mr. Speaker, Canada is a very special nation, a country blessed with abundance, a land filled with resources. We are a country envied around the world, an envy that has attracted people to our land and allowed us to build a nation that provides opportunity to our citizens and dreams for our youth.
This is not a country that anyone should take for granted or treat as the stakes for a game of Russian roulette. Canada is a country worth fighting for. I call on our premiers to reach out to one another in generosity and in kindness to achieve agreement on the Meech Lake Accord, to take our nation through this first round of constitutional reform and to lead our country into maturity.
Now is the time to set aside our personal and political differences and to follow the example of the Hon. Member for Shefford.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians concerned about the environment were extremely unhappy with the decision taken by the Minister of the Environment to proceed with the Rafferty-Alameda project without holding a public environmental impact assessment and were similarly disgusted with the bungled attempt to export Canadian PCBs across the world.

Despite the public promises of the Conservatives to take environmental consequences into account in making all economic decision, we see the Minister of Finance promoting the GST without any concern whatsoever for the negative environmental consequences. Why should environmentally friendly goods be taxed at the same rate as goods and services which poison our air and drinking water and contribute to our monumental waste disposal problems?
The Minister of the Environment should hang his head for supporting a regressive tax regime which taxes recycled paper at the same rate as other paper, bicycles at the same rate as cars, alternate energy at the same rate as fossil fuels which contribute to the greenhouse effect, cloth diapers at the same rate as disposable ones.
Jim MacNeil, Secretary General of the Brundtland Commission, was dead on yesterday for condemning the Conservative government for being long on talk and short on action for protecting our environment. It is time for green taxes, not grief taxes.


CANADA POST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to impress upon the government the need for close scrutiny at Canada Post. The London Free Press today, has a front page story which alleges that managers at Canada Post in London, Ontario, have been artificially doctoring employee attendance records to make employees who were absent appear as though they had been present. One has to wonder why these kinds of activities are going on and why it is that someone would have the motivation to do so if those allegations are in fact correct.
I have in hand an internal letter of Canada Post dated February 7, 1986, in which one manager brings the following to the attention of lower managers. He says:
Any raises for MPS categories are hinged directly to our control of absenteeism. Last year I got no raise! This year I want one! Do your part, it is all that I ask.
We have suspected for some time that there are bonuses at Canada Post for managers who twist the arms
Oral Questions
of people below them. This seems to be proof of exactly that kind of practice.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians learned today that the decision concerning VIA Rail was not taken as a result of the government's budget-cutting exercise as we were led to believe. I have learned that it was discussed on November 22, one day after the federal election, according to a leading newspaper.
This is an attempt to fool Canadians. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why did the government try to mislead Canadians on this very important question?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a little more consistency on that side of the House of Commons. Yesterday I was accused of not being aware of what happened to transport in the April budget and that everything had been imposed on me.
Tbday the member stated that there was a document which was issued in November saying that I proposed to cut VIA Rail. I believe that he should make up his mind as to whether it is November or April. Please, I do not think we need two versions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that to the minister because I did not put my question to the minister. Again, since it was the Deputy Prime Minister who reinstated routes that had been cancelled previously and told people to "use it or lose it", I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the government is refusing to consider all the facts before taking such Draconian action against the travelling public of this country.


Mr. Bouchard:: Mr. Speaker, since April and even before then, the Government has been considering various factors to determine the future of VIA Rail.

September 29, 1989
Oral Questions
I said not long ago, in fact I have been saying this all week, that we were involved in a decision-making process and that as soon as the decision is announced, Hon. Members will be able to stop relying on leaked documents at a rate of several per week, and use official documents provided by the Department of Transport.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, nothing would enhance the Department of Transport as much as the minister leaving it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him if he would consult with the Prime Minister and advise him that the transport committee will be meeting at 9.30 on Tuesday, October 3, and would he ask the Prime Minister to come before that committee and try, if he can, to explain why the government is taking this Draconian action which is going to hurt the Canadian environment, is going to devastate the travelling public and is going to wind up destroying VIA Rail.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I hope that the committee will do the same work that it did in 1981 when this member was chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and he cut VIA Rail by 20 per cent.


JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the government was rushing to defend itself against the charge contained in the RCMP DEA report which was made public yesterday that the government has let Canada become a haven for the proceeds of crime.
After declaring a war on drugs, the government rejected the essential bank deposit reporting requirement which I brought forward when the bill was before the committee. It sat on the bill for six months after it was passed before proclaiming it. Rod Stanler, the distinguished RCMP drug officer, left the force, saying that the government was afraid the new law, and the
Minister of Justice himself yesterday said that because of failings in the law, the municipal police forces of the country are not using it. Instead of declaring itself a success, why does the government not admit that this law is a failure and bring forward amendments to correct it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that this government has taken very seriously the whole question of money laundering, also the whole question of the problem of drugs as has been indicated by the Prime Minister for a number of years now at a time when he was ridiculed by the members opposite because of the words that he used to describe the problems of drugs in this country.
On the question of money laundering, we have always taken this as a serious matter. We had this report which I should point out is a year out of date. It is a September 1988 report. Since then, we have had Bill C-61 which deals with the proceeds of crime. We have also entered into mutual legal assistance treaties with the United States and other countries.
At the last summit we agreed with our partners in the summit countries to work co-operatively on an international basis to deal with this problem.
In addition to that, the RCMP and ourselves are working very closely with the chartered banks to ensure that the practices that they are following are consistent with what is required to address this problem which is clearly an international problem.
Mr. Kaplan I do not think the Minister knows what is happening. He just said that we entered into a mutual legal assistance treaty. In fact, we endorsed it on our side, but is it not a fact that the U.S. Senate is refusing to ratify that treaty, particularly because Canada has no minimum deposit reporting requirement in our law? That is a report from the Financial Post just the other day.
I want to ask the Minister to retract the statement that we have a mutual legal assistance treaty. In fact, we do not, and we will not have one until we have a proper law in this country about the proceeds of crime.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Member is quite correct that we have indicated our readiness to ratify that mutual assistance treaty.


Ms. Copps:: That's not what you said, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I just said that I agreed with the member opposite. We have not had the United States saying to us that they are ready to ratify that treaty. We have been working closely with it, though, in an operational sense, and we will continue to work closely as has been indicated by representatives of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States on television this morning.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps he will stop his clapping when he hears the question.
The Government of Canada, through the office of the Prime Minister during the election campaign in 1988 promised to improve VIA Rail. This was during the election campaign, I repeat. We now learn, according to a report in today's press, that while this promise was being made, the government had already made a decision for major cut-backs in VIA Rail and the then President of VIA Rail was informed of that but had been asked to keep quiet during that election period. Why was the Government of Canada saying one thing during the election campaign while simultaneously making its decision about VIA Rail to go in the opposite direction?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not stop clapping. It was not because the member asked me a question. It was because I appreciate the reason why his party was applauding and I will continue to clap.
Now, concerning VIA Rail, first of all the document that the leader of the NDP is referring to is a document that I have not seen. It seems to be a leaked document, but even if the document has been leaked, the document referred to November 22, the day when I was at my doctor's office for surgery I would undergo the week after. I was surely not deciding about VIA Rail.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister's medical appointments to one side, whether it was on that precise day or not, the accusation is extremely serious. The accusation is made that the head of VIA Rail knew that a
Oral Questions
decision had been made to have cuts in VIA Rail but had been asked to keep quiet during that period, and at the same time the Prime Minister's Office, in response to questions about government proposals for action on VIA Rail during the election, was promising, to quote the document put out by the Prime Minister's Office, to enhance the service of VIA Rail.
Was the president of VIA or was he not informed at that time of a decision that had been taken? Why, I repeat, was the Government of Canada, in an election campaign, saying one thing about VIA Rail and at the same time planning to go in the opposite direction?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously a process is now in place for the decision making on cutbacks at VIA Rail, and this process ended or started, as the case may be, on April 27, the budget cuts were announced. Almost six months after the election campaign, the Budget was brought down in which the Government announced its intention to cut back on spending. I think this is a completely normal process. I intervened in the process when I had to, contrary to what was said yesterday. I repeat, what is important is that the corporation had to be given spending levels commensurate with our ability to pay, and this was made clear in the April Budget, but I repeat, this was part of a procedure that took several months to establish.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. My last question is as follows: The Minister responsible for Montreal said yesterday that he did not know what impact these cuts would have on the Montreal area. However, according to recent information, we are going to lose 3,800 jobs in Montreal, 500 in Winnipeg, 300 in Halifax, which means a total of 13,000 jobs in Canada. My question for the Minister is very direct: Will he publicly admit today that the Government intends to abolish 13,000 jobs?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course I will not confirm those figures which, once again, are based on documents that are not official. I have no idea where those figures come from because I have not seen them, and so I see it is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker, not to confirm either the document or the figures it contains.

Oral Questions


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of Transport said in this House, and I quote:
The Minister of Finance has decided for the best of this country to
determine new reference levels for VIA Rail.
This is the first time that we have an admission by the Minister of Transport that the decisions on VIA Rail were in fact made by the Minister of Finance. What the Minister of Finance and his department know about transportation policy in this country is beyond me.
Let me address my question to the Minister of Finance. When will he table in this House the studies and criteria used by his department to determine those reference levels? We need the supporting documentation on how he arrived at these figures and perhaps the minister will be kind enough to tell us when this information will be brought to the House.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat it today, as I just said to the Leader of the NDP, I have been a part of this decision all along.
Yesterday I was accused of not being part of the process and today your colleague said that I did in November. I think, once again, we need a little consistency. The possible cuts at VIA Rail, the cuts in the reference levels, have been decided by the cabinet.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that we need a little consistency and let me just clarify some information that has been coming forward.
VIA Rail in fact does use 3 per cent of those people using transportation needs in our country. But in context, the bus service in this country uses 4 per cent, the air services use 7 per cent and the automobiles on the highways use 86 per cent. So in context 3 per cent is a rather large number.
Having said that, my next question is to the Minister of Finance also. The $250 million used in your statistic, 1993, is calculated in 1993 terms. Does the Minister of Finance say that this in effect destroys passenger rail service in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the reference levels were determined based on the capacity of Canadians to pay for the budget as a whole. The member gave a few figures, he said 3, 4, 5, 6 per
cent, and I think those figures are accurate, but at the same time the Department of Transport has to determine subsidies or support for different kinds of transportation modes.
We have determined that VIA Rail, transporting just 3 per cent of intercity passengers, should be cut in light of the fact that in terms of the reference we had for the other modes of transport, VIA Rail was over-subsidized. This is the reason why we have those figures.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Because the threshold of the GST tax credit system is not fully indexed, over half a million low-income Canadian families who would be eligible for full refundable GST credits in 1991 will lose either part or all of their credits within five years. Because of this erosion, within 10 years over one million will lose their credits.
Can the minister explain why he has decided not to protect low-income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the government has been sensitive to the impacts of the indexation formula that is now in the tax system, the CPI minus three formula. As an example, on the question of the refundable sales tax credit, we started with a threshold of $15,000, then we moved it up to $16,000, then we moved it to $18,000. Now with the GST proposal it is going to be $25,000.
That indicates that we review these programs on an ongoing basis and we make adjustments where they are appropriate. I think it would be wrong for the hon. member to draw the conclusions, as he has, that in a certain period of time X thousand people will be ineligible for the GST credit. All elements of the tax system are indexed the same way and all elements of the tax system will continue to be indexed the same way. They will be adjusted as appropriate as time goes by.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, obviously where these credits are not fully indexed, year by year, each year and every year, Canadians lose the value of that credit system. Obviously this tax must be withdrawn. If the minister is really serious about protecting low-income Canadians from this regressive GST he will not increase the burden placed on these people.
September 29, 1989

Will the minister commit to the House today to fully index the income thresholds of the tax credits and the tax credit system in order to protect all low-income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think fair-minded Canadians would see clearly that what we are doing in the GST tax system is changing from the regressive nature of the sales tax system we inherited in 1984 whereby people who were in low-income brackets were paying 2 or 3 percentage points more of their income in sales tax than those in upper incomes. That is clearly regressive.
With the refundable sales tax credit and the GST credit that we are bringing with the GST tax system, we have changed that so that people in low incomes will be paying 2 or 3 percentage points less of their income than those in upper-income brackets. Clearly, we are moving to a much fairer system and that system is widely acknowledged as being far better than the very regressive system that we inherited in 1984.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. At the VIA Rail board of directors meeting of September 7 they were supplied with a document entitled Financial Results and Forecast, July 1989 In that document there are a number of financial statements and a number of graphs, that clearly indicate that the people of Canada are using VIA Rail in ever-growing numbers. Revenue is up from $65 million to $123 million over one year. The trend lines for every route are in an upward direction. These are VIA Rail documents and I will send the minister a copy so he knows what I am talking about.
Given these documents, these pictures that VIA Rail has that show that people are using the rails, that revenue is going up, will the minister not agree that what he has been doing is purposely telling the people of Canada one thing that is not supported by the facts?
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday what I think about the kind of figures my friend is proposing. The information I have for VIA Rail is that for the first six months of 1989 the increase in traffic was 4 per cent. I believe we have to be serious. If the trains were full, if we just had a lot of money to operate the trains, we would keep the same system. However, we subsidize routes by $641 million. We have a route in British Columbia which costs $419 per passenger. We have routes which cost $325 per passenger. If it is working so well, if people are using the train that much, how can we have those figures where we have deficits of more than $600 million?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the document I have is not a fabrication. It is a document which was produced by VIA Rail and submitted to its board of directors earlier this month. That document shows that train revenue systemwide is up 14.6 per cent, passenger miles are up 7.3 per cent, train yield is up 6.8 per cent, load factor is up 12.3 per cent and total passengers are up 2.7 per cent. What this document shows, Mr. Speaker, is that in spite of the antiquated equipment and the very poor marketing that VIA has been able to do because of the cuts, more and more people are using the train, and we have to find a way to invest in rail passenger services so that more people can use it and we can lower the cost, because it is possible.
The minister knows that the costs can be reduced by investing in new equipment, and with proper operating rules with CN and CP. It can be done. Unfortunately this government doesn't have the backbone to do it.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP always has the magical formula. We know that, everybody knows that. But he didn't give any figures about costs. Last year, 1988, revenues were up $26 million, but expenditures were $94 million more. Is this the kind of management he wants?
In 1987 the total costs were $638.4 million; in 1988, $732 million. The costs increased more quickly than the revenues. I am not a specialist, Mr. Speaker, but normally when the cost is over the revenue there is a problem.

Oral Questions FISHERIES


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary.
The Canadian Auto Workers are threatening to disrupt the export of unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia. What is the Government of Canada going to do to discourage or prevent the export of unprocessed fish from Nova Scotia?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very serious issue, one of concern to a number people of Nova Scotia. If regulation is necessary to deal with this problem, it is regulation that must come from the province of Nova Scotia. However, I suspect that that government recognizes the traps that are involved and the potential difficulties in dealing with GATT, which we all comply with and is supported by all parties in this House.
This government would prefer, Mr. Speaker, to deal in voluntary measures and to deal with incentive-based measures to deal with this critical problem. It is something that has been discussed and studied by the Hache report, which will be presented to the government and, in turn, to the special committee reviewing the Atlantic fishery.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Virtually all the witnesses to appear before the legislative committee studying Bill C-21, the unemployment insurance legislation, were opposed to the government's proposal to withdraw its financial contribution to the UI account. Indeed, employer representatives were led to say that if our premiums are expected to pay for this program then we should be allowed to run it. They then proposed that fisheries benefits, maternity benefits, and training be removed from the program.
Is this the government's intention? Is it the hidden agenda to carry out a two-step privatization of UI in Canada?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that the changes to the unemployment insurance scheme have the very definite objective of making it more efficient, more dynamic and more active. The Government is not surrendering its unemployment insurance responsibility, for we shall continue to administer the unemployment insurance fund and support training programs together with the private sector which acknowledged in a brief its obligation. And if ever Canada were to face difficult economic times, we would take steps, as a responsible Government, to absorb any deficit incurred by the unemployment insurance fund. Therefore, as a Government, we maintain our involvement, but in a different way, because the unemployment insurance reform calls for a new philosophy.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the Minister of State for Employment introduced Bill C-21, she told us that the changes would not affect the benefits paid to independent fishermen. Yet, we know that with the new Bill, these benefits will not be paid from general funding, but from contributions. For the Minister's information, changes to the type of financing of a program amounting to $250 million are real changes indeed.
Therefore, in order to protect the integrity of this program, could the Minister assure the House that the Bill will be amended so that benefits will be paid from general funding?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, this so-call reform is really a redistribution of funds.
As I was saying earlier, when we compare our unemployment insurance scheme with those in all the other industrialized nations, we feel the need to make it more practical, more enhanced and more equitable. We have taken into account the special needs of fishermen and the redistribution of $1,3 billion will help provide social benefits, if we want to encourage the participation of
September 29, 1989

women in our society; we will also continue to support needy workers.
The unemployment insurance scheme will continue to be a safety net for workers looking for a job.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the status of women, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns Bill C-21, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why the government spends $8 million a year on three agencies to advise it on the status of women and then does not even ask those agencies how this legislation will affect the women of Canada? Did the minister and the government not ask because they do not want to hear the truth about women working 16 hours a day on the farms in B.C., working in the fish processing plants in Atlantic Canada, and immigrant women who are losing their jobs by the hundreds in the garment industry in Tbronto? Or is it because they already know the answer, that this legislation will drive women and their families further into poverty?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, as a woman in this Government and a member of Cabinet, I must tell you that I am proud to be a woman because our Government has done the most to improve the status of Canadian women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Monique Vézina: We have implemented an employment strategy that takes account of women's needs, whether they are immigrants, young or old. We have implemented social equity measures and federal contract programs, to name only these, that take account of women's needs. Unemployment insurance reform is a very specific way of doing so, since as we say, the cornerstone of success is training, and women will of course have their program.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we checked on that information with all three organizations and none of them had been consulted to date. I do not know how the minister gets her information.
Oral Questions
I have a supplementary question to the same minister on the changes to the UI Act. Bill C-21 will substantially alter the character and the mandate of the act as the government withdraws its $2.9 billion, cuts hard-earned benefits to the unemployed and increases unilaterally, I might add, to 15 per cent, or $1.8 billion, the amount from UI to be used for developmental purposes rather than for income maintenance as constitutionally required.
Will the minister make a commitment to this House that the insurance premium funds, now over 50 per cent of all moneys available for training, will not be used to further scale down the government's contributions to training on the Canadian Jobs Strategy, from which the government has already withdrawn $700 million since 1984?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly? Is the Hon. Member asking us not to use the reallocated funds for training, when statistics show us that 30 per cent of workers must be retrained to meet the new requirements? That is the purpose of unemployment insurance reform: to ensure that workers are ready to face the new requirements of the year 2000, whether they are young or old, men or women.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I noticed yesterday when I spoke to his old friend, Laurent Thibeault from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, that Mr. Thibeault is now starting a national propaganda campaign to try to sell the GST to the Canadian people. We also found out that the Minister of Finance is co-operating with him by sending officials around to his meetings.
In light of the fact that the Manufacturers' Association and big business spent millions of dollars over the last couple of years trying to sell free trade and save this government's neck, I want to know why this minister now is spending taxpayers' money to try to sell a deal to the Canadian people that the Canadian people don't want.

September 29, 1989
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is an astounding statement. We in the Department of Finance have made an offer to any organization holding workshops or other informational sessions on the GST, whether it is workshops by industry organizations, by labour organizations, by social organizations or any type of organization. If they want to have some resource people from the Department of Finance to help explain to their membership what the GST is, how it can affect them, what impact it may have on various aspects of their operations, officials will be made available to those organization.
To call an attempt by an industry association to explain a government policy to their organization a propaganda policy or a national propaganda campaign is absolutely outstanding-I mean astounding. The rhetoric that the hon. member is using to describe these things is just unbelievable.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think outstanding is probably correct. Maybe he should talk to Mr. Thibeault, his friend, because it was Mr. Thibeault who was telling the committee that they are launching this publicity campaign to sell this idea to the Canadian people. It is not Lome Nystrom saying that, it is Mr. Thibeault.
I want to know whether the minister can tell us today the extent of the commitment made by the Conservative Party in terms of taxpayers' money and the extent to which officials and bureaucrats are going across this country to sell this idea to the Canadian people. I want to know how much that is going to cost. I want to know the nature of the commitment, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, so do the people of this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote Mr. Pinard, the chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He said that this is necessary to educate the public, to advise the public, to inform the public, to tell Canadians the impact of this. But in particular, they believe that it is important for their managers as well as their employees, their workers, to understand how the goods and services tax benefits the manufacturing industry in Canada.
The manufacturing industry is an important part of our economy and certainly I do not think there should be any
reason whatsoever to criticize the federal government for making officials available, as we will to any organization across the country if they want to take the initiative to advise their membership of the details of the goods and services tax proposal.


JUSTICE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance regarding the laundering of drug money. The impression has been left by his earlier answers that in fact the reason the U.S. Senate is refusing to ratify the treaty is Canada's failure to produce mandatory reporting limits. If that is in fact the case, members would be upset. I wonder whether the minister would clarify his earlier answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, following my previous response to the member for York Centre, and in particular his allegations that the reason why the United States has not ratified the Mutual Assistance Treaty is because we did not have the mandatory reporting requirements, I did check with my officials who have been directly responsible for these negotiations.
I am advised that the assertion of the hon. member is absolutely untrue and that the delay is not tied to anything that Canada is doing but is more related to problems in the relationship between Mexico and the United States. Once those are worked out I would hope that we would have ratification by both the United States and Canada. Certainly we are ready to ratify our treaty as quickly as we can.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is supposedly responsible for tourist policies in this country. The provincial ministers of tourism are against this new GST tax, the Tourist Industry Association of Canada predicts at least 30,000 jobs lost, and once again the Conference Board of Canada warns us that the tourist industry is in serious decline.
September 29, 1989

If the minister is dedicated to his responsibility as Minister of Tourism, why did he let such disastrous proposals be put forward by this Conservative government?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quotes documents which are now out of date and are being changed. The conference board study was based upon assumptions which have since been changed. The hon. member should understand that from day one I have been working with the Minister of Finance to get important features put into the GST to help the tourism industry.
I remind him what they are. The first and most important is that accommodation of foreign tourists in Canada will be exempt from the tax. I do not know of any jurisdiction that has a VAT that gives such a privilege to the tourist industry. Number two, goods purchased by tourists in Canada will also be exempt from the tax. Number three, transportation into the country will be exempt from the tax.
There are a whole series of constructive proposals that the tourist association has brought forward and that I have brought to the Minister of Finance. These will be put in place. We are working with them to bring more constructive proposals forward as well to help make the tax work in a way which will not be administratively burdensome for the industry.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I notice that he did not give the statistic that 80 per cent of the tourist activity in this country is by Canadians themselves.

The Conservative Government's repeated attacks on the tourism industry will lead to this industry's total destruction.
Does the Minister not realize that everyone around him, the provincial ministers, small businesses, the Conference Board of Canada again and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada are unanimous in saying that the new 9 per cent tax and the cuts to VIA Rail will destroy Canada's tourism infrastructure?
How can the Minister, as Minister of Tourism, knowing that the erosion of the tourism industry is directly due to his Government's misguided policies, remain in
Oral Questions
office, knowing that his decisions will destroy the tourism industry in this country?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, one reason for remaining in this position is to continue my work with the tourism associations to bring them the kind of features they ask for under the GST. We have already accomplished a number and we will continue to work for others.
The hon. member's statistics are wrong. Tourism, up until the end of June, is up this year over the previous year. He is wrong on that. Second, he seems to be against us trying to entice non-Canadians to visit Canada. Canada, as an industry has enormous attractions. We have amenities, we have a culture, we have sightseeing, we have baseball teams, we have all sorts of attractions. Let's not abuse this industry, let's boost it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will complete question period with one question from the Member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception and one question from the member for Edmonton East.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. I have here a recent DND response to a question on the Order Paper which says that no socioeconomic impact studies were undertaken on communities for which base closures are planned and neither were there corresponding studies on the impact of military effectiveness.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the house exactly how he assessed these factors in the case of CFB Summerside?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in using the word "study" I suggest the hon. member is familiar with activities in the Department of National Defence. When he talks about socioeconomic studies, we identified the payrolls that went into those communities, we identified the loss that would be taking place in those communities. We did not identify replacement opportunities or replacement economic activity. That is not the responsibility of the Department of National Defence.

Routine Proceedings
I can suggest to him when he is saying that there was no study done on defence initiatives or defence efficiencies to the changes made in the defence bases and stations around Canada, he is totally inaccurate.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The goods and services tax will apply on sales of energy resources to Canadians but not on export sales of those energy resources to Americans. The Free Trade Agreement ensures Canadian energy resources must be sold to American buyers at market-determined prices equivalent to those charged Canadian buyers. In a nutshell, the double whammy of the FTA and GST will give American consumers a competitive advantage over our own Canadian energy resources.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Is this another brainwave from the Fraser Institute, or did his boys across the way think this one up all by themselves?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should study the GST proposal, and particularly as it relates to the energy sector, because in it the current manufacturers' sales tax that is in place is a direct cost of doing business .Under the GST the input tax credit will be applied. Any of the capital investments that are used for the extraction of energy or the exploitation of energy resources will have an input tax credit. So it puts the Canadian energy sector in a much more competitive position. The hon. member, as a critic, I understand, for energy, should recognize that and should applaud it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege arising out of Question Period from the Hon. Member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, during Question Period I asked a question of the Minister of Finance. In his answer he
misrepresented a treaty we had which he claimed existed between Canada and the United States.
Subsequently, he rose and accused me of misrepresenting the circumstances under which the treaty was signed or not signed. I would like briefly, since there is an implication that I misled the House, to read into the record-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would tend to believe this is a matter of debate rather than a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petition No. 342-0751.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[



STRIKING COMMITTEE


M. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Thirteenth Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today yet another petition signed by residents of the area around Kingston who are protesting the closure or threatened closure of VIA Rail, and call upon Parliament and the government not to cancel in whole or in part VIA Rail passenger rail service in Canada. The petition has been certified to be in order by the Clerk of Petitions and contains 56 signatures.
September 29, 1989


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, again I rise, as I have the last several days, under Standing Order 36 to present a petition to this House, certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions, from a number of Canadians who call on this government to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service. Canadians, though not unanimous are very close to unanimous on this question. They wish their rail services maintained and upgraded, as is attested to in this petition.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House again today to present a petition on behalf of 41 petitioners from the Kingston area of Ontario. These petitioners are very concerned about the cut-back in VIA rail, and ask the Government of Canada to consider very carefully the cancellation of either whole or part of the passenger rail service here in Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of Canada from New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador and Toronto, who are concerned that the NATO-NORAD low-level flight training operating out of Goose Bay not only disrupts the lives of the people who have lived there for so many centuries but also endangers the peace in this era of negotiations.
Therefore, they ask the government to join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador in demanding the government to end all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in both Goose Bay and other parts of Canada, and to oppose the entry of NATO operations into Canada, including the proposed Goose Bay base and to redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihoods, promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about their jobs, their futures, their communities, their children and their grandchildren for that matter. They are very concerned about the effect that the government's proposed goods and services tax is going to have on them and their futures.
Routine Proceedings
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to rise and present to you a petition duly certified by the Clerk. These Canadians humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present this petition that has been certified by the Clerk. It relates to VIA Rail and the abandonment of a mode of transportation in this country that is very important to all Canadians and a necessity. Considering the fact that environmental situations in this country are getting worse every day, we need the type of transportation that will not pollute our air and our country for future generations of Canadians.
There are so many individuals who have continued to send us petitions that I find it very difficult to believe that the government would even attempt to remove this service when fully 80 per cent of Canadians feel that this is a tragic situation and that it should be stopped immediately.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, which has been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions, on behalf of literally thousands of citizens of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned that the government's intention to proceed with a goods and services tax is a very unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay. They point out a whole host of reason why the government should reconsider this tax initiative.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a second matter, Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are asking the government to reconsider its decision to curtail VIA Rail service, particularly to the regions of Canada. They have noted, Mr. Speaker, what appears to be an enhancement of the service in the central corridor of the country at the expense of VIA Rail service in the regions of Canada and they feel that is certainly discriminatory.

Routine Proceedings


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 33 residents of the community of Atikokan in my riding. It is a VIA Rail petition. They are petitioning in support of a continuation of VIA Rail service.
What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that these people come from a community that lost its passenger rail service 10 years ago. They want to join in the fight to ensure that other Canadians do not suffer the same situation that occurred to them when they lost their passenger services.
They call on Parliament to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present to the House a petition on behalf of constituents in the riding of one of our hon. members.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I suppose the members opposite find this humourous, Mr. Speaker. But, of course, this is of utmost importance when we are talking about Canadians coming forward through their representative in the House of Commons and humbly praying and calling upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I also have other petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 that humbly call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part national passenger rail service in this country.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Also pursuant to Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 25 members of local churches, including the Westhill United Church in my riding of Hamilton West. They call upon the government to provide full disclosure of all Canadian military exports, including the type, producers, vendors, purchasers, transporters, as well as the immediate and final destinations of military exports
to be printed in register form and available to the Canadian public upon request.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a number of petitions duly certified from constituents of my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West, who wish to register their opposition to the goods and services tax, and who humbly call upon Parliament to reject this tax as it will do incalculable harm to Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am today again tabling a petition which was gathered in my riding of Sudbury with the help of a large number of residents of my riding who are extremely worried about the effects of this tax on their lifestyle, on their living. They humbly ask the government to please consider Canadians because that is what we are here for. There is only one taxpayer at the bottom of the heap. He cannot keep paying more and more. So we have to reject this particular proposal for the goods and services tax and go back to the drawing-board.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and an honour to present on behalf of several thousand British Columbians petitions which humbly petition this Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life at conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36.1 am proud in so doing to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the province of British Columbia who, on the matter of the forestry ministry now before us, humbly pray that whereas the forests of Canada have been harvested and exploited for decades without sufficient replanting and regeneration having taken place; and whereas the need for regeneration of this precious resource has never been more paramount, they urge the federal government to implement a ministry of forestry that has a great deal more content and impact than does the proposal now before us, particularly with regard to the administration of FRDA agreements, their enhancement and their renewal with the provinces.
September 29, 1989


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I know we will have the support of the parliamentary secretary in signing that petition in urging the renewal of FRDA for B.C. I noticed the hon. member for Fraser Valley East is now endorsing our petition as well. The Tory caucus is finally coming on board with the new forest agreement for B.C. We appreciate that.
The petition I wish to table today relates to VIA Rail. Of course, it calls upon this government to ensure that we improve and modernize VIA Rail, not just in the heavily travelled Quebec City to Windsor corridor, which we support, but also to express concerns on the comments that the Minister of Transport made today about certain rail links in British Columbia. I think he is talking about our rail service. My constituents and constituents across this country are concerned about that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, question No. 93 will be answered today.


Mr. Fulton: 1.	In the past five years has the government tested any imported substance for the presence of substances defined as toxic under the Environmental Contaminants Act or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, if so (a) on what date was each test conducted (b) what was the substance tested (c) for the presence of what toxic substances were tests conducted (d) what was the estimated cost of each test (e) were any toxic substances found (f) were any charges laid as a result of those tests?
2.	In the past ten years has the government received any written or oral reports alleging that gasoline, oil or any petroleum product
Routine Proceedings
was contaminated with any substance defined as toxic under the Environmental Contaminants Act or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, if so (a) on what date was the report made (b) to which government department was it made?
3.	In the past five years has the government conducted any tests on petroleum products for sale or in use in Canada for the presence of substances defined as toxic under the Environmental Contaminants Act or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, if so (a) on what date was each test conducted (b) what was the substance tested (c) for the presence of what toxic substances were tests conducted (d) what was the estimated cost of each test (e) were any toxic substances found (f) were any charges laid as a result of those tests?


Lucien Bouchard: 1.	The government has not tested imported substances for the presence of substances defined as toxic under the Environmental Contaminants Act (ECA) or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). However, the government has tested many imported products for substances defined as toxic under the ECA and CEPA.
W	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(0April 1986	Electric space heaters	PCBs	$100/anal- ysis	880 parts per million (ppm)	No-recall carried outMay 1986	Same	PCBs	Same	110-124 ppm	SameMay 1987	Capacitors in water pumps	PCBs	Same	No PCBs	NoOcto- ber 1987	Paint pigments	PCBs	Same	Less than 3 ppm	NoMay 1989	PCB-contaminated mineral oil transformers	PCBs	Same	699-733 ppm	Pending1984	Aerosols	CFCs	$50/sam- ple	CFCs present in 37 of 75 imported products tested	No-Imported aerosols not regulated1987	Aerosols	CFCs	Same	CFCs present in 17 of 66 imported products tested	No2.	Yes.
a) Since the May 8 Globe and Mail article pertaining to the contaminated fuel issue, four oral and one written allegations have been received.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
As well, several allegations related to leaded gasoline being sold as unleaded gasoline have been received over the past ten years.
b) The Department of the Environment
3.	The concentration of lead in automotive gasoline is regulated under the Leaded Gasoline and the Lead-free Gasoline Regulations under CEPA. Before CEPA came into effect, these regulations were under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
Environment Canada's compliance monitoring program for these regulations involves extensive sampling and analysis of unleaded gasoline sold at retail service stations, and refinery production of leaded and unleaded gasoline.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(91984	See #3	Lead in Automotive Gasoline	$5/an alysis	2229 tests 62 incidences of lead levels above allowed limits	None*1985	Same	Same	Same	1938 tests 33 incidences of lead levels above allowed limits	None [DOT]1986	Same	Same	Same	2526 tests 43 incidences of lead levels above allowed limits	None [DOT]1987	Same	Same	Same	2587 tests 77 incidences of lead levels above allowed limits	None [DOT]1988	Same	Same	Same	1619 tests 7 incidences of lead levels above allowed limits	None [DOT]
The incidences of gasoline with lead levels above the allowable limits occurred with unleaded gasoline sampled at retail service stations. The samples were contaminated with lead at levels only nominally over the allowed limit of 13 milligrams of lead per litre. At these lead levels, there is little risk of damage to catalytic converters on cars. In all cases, the retail outlets were instructed to stop sales of the contaminated gasoline, remove it and re-supply new gasoline verified for lead content.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretaiy has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOUVERNEMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now proceed to questions and comments following the speech by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey). The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), on questions and comments.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my NDP colleague from Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) had to say. I have two comments on his speech. My first one is that the Hon. Member raised the possibility of referring the Bill to the Standing Committee. Mr. Speaker, the Government decided to refer the Bill to a legislative committee because obsious-ly the Government wants to observe the spirit of the McGrath reform. As you know, this reform makes it possible for Members to go to the legislative committee and consider the specific of a bill.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee will consist only of individuals who are specifically interested in forestry. This is important because the Standing Committee covers both forestry and fisheries. We agreed that it would be better in this particular case to go to the legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and several other Opposition Members mentioned figures that appear in the Estimates for the current year, saying that the ministry's budget had been cut. I may remind Hon. Members that what they saw in the Estimates of 1989-90 are figures that are incomplete, in that they represent -At this point, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the agreements are about to expire, and generally, the agreements are included in the various budgets. Six agreements out of ten are to be re-negotiated, while the other agreements will expire next year.

It is also a fact that the budgets are always lower when we get to the last year of a series of agreements. I think I should warn the Opposition that these figures does not necessarily reflect what future spending by the Department of Forestry will be and that because we will have a better idea when all the agreements have been renewed.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if we consider the Estimates that were tabled last February, it was said that for this year the Department would have a budget of $206 million with 1,226 person-years. Today, and this is the point I am trying to make, we are up to $211 million, with 1,328 person-years, which is more than for 1988-89. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure all the Members are aware of this fact and are not too hasty in their judgments about the impact of current budgets on the future Department of Forestry.


Mr. Arseneault:: Mr. Speaker, under questions and comments, I just want to make a few comments.
The parliamentary secretary has made some comments which I think it would be wise for us to put in the proper perspective.
What we are trying to do is help the minister of forestry by giving him a little more authority. We are arguing that we want the minister of forestry to have more authority, more money and more personnel in his department. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what we are in favour of.
The other thing he mentioned is that the agreements have expired and none of that money is in the forestry budget yet and that is why the budget looks a little lower. Let me tell you that the budgets for the forestry agreements are not going to be found in the forestry department. They are going to be under the control of other ministries. That is what we are worried about. We would like to see all of the budget money into the forestry department. There is no doubt about it.
Let me assure you and the hon. parliamentary secretary that we are in favour of a full-fledged forestry department. We are very pleased that we are going to have one. However, we would like it to be much stronger than that. Maybe the member for Edmonton East would like to comment on that aspect as well.
Government Orders


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, to return to the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary, he suggested that the reference of the bill to a legislative committee was' superior in this instance to the reference of the bill to the standing committee because the standing committee includes within its mandate the responsibility for fisheries.
This is, I will grant him, a colourful argument, but I do not know if it is quite to the point. Because the committee's mandate includes fisheries does not require it as a committee to include the question of fisheries in all of the business it does, just as the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources is quite competent to consider matters dealing only with Canada's energy resources-and, in fact, we did so earlier this week when we had the National Energy Board before us-to the complete exclusion of questions of, for example, mines. I do not recall one single question being put to the NEB regarding mines.
Therefore, it is possible for the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries to, for the purpose of studying this bill, concern itself solely with fisheries. For example, if the Canadian Institute of Forestry was to appear before that committee, I feel very confident in saying that it would be most unlikely that any member of that committee would put to that institute a question regarding fisheries.
The argument that the bill must be referred to the legislative committee as opposed to the standing committee I do not think has yet been unassailably made.
The question of the budget figures, and the contention that the figures are incomplete because we are at the end of a period during which several agreements are expiring, is an interesting rhetorical point to which I will respond. Surely, it is up to the ministry to place before this House estimates of its expenditures as complete as they can possibly make them.
If they are intending to sign agreements this year, and if in consequence of those agreements the ministry is intending to spend money then, by heaven, estimates for that expenditure ought to be included in the budgetary estimates presented to this House. Those estimates are the only documents we have to go on. If they are not including expenditures that they fully expect to undertake in those estimates, then they are to that degree at least misleading this House. I leave that to them.

Government Orders


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in response to the points made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), I may recall that referring the Bill to the legislative committee will give Members with a special interest in forestry a chance to work on the Bill and thus make a contribution that will be far more useful than if the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries.
I may also remind the Hon. Member that I listened carefully to his speech, and that after he mentioned at the beginning of his speech that he felt the Government wanted to expedite passage of the Bill, I was surprised when I heard him say later that he would have preferred to see the Bill referred for consideration to the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, in order to slow down the process.
I can inform the Hon. Member that my riding, Man-icouagan, has a large number of forestry operations. It is a riding that needs dynamic policies for reforestation, a riding that needs research and development, and I would be very disappointed if the Bill were not given speedy consideration by the legislative committee and the House of Commons.
Throughout his speech, the Hon. Member mentioned a series of factors, events and situations which in my view confirm that this Bill should be passed as soon as possible. He referred to the situation at the paper mills. He mentioned clearcutting and referred to air pollution, acid rain and contaminated effluents.
Mr. Speaker, I think all these factors argue in favour of getting Bill C-29 as quickly as possible through the legislative committee so that it can then be referred back to the House of Commons.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, again, I would just briefly note that the government's new found concern for expeditious treatment of this bill is welcome on this side of the assembly. We only ask where they were from 1984 until 1989.
I would say as well that we have no objection to the bill going to the legislative committee on the assumption that that committee will hear witnesses on the bill. We
consider that to be a virtually minimal demand in this regard. So, if you are going to refer it to the legislative committee, fine, go ahead, but please hear witnesses.
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-29. In fact, I am very proud to be able to participate in the legislation that will finally create a full department of forestry for Canada. As a Canadian, I applaud this far-sighted legislation. But this legislation is also important to me as a British Columbian. It is no exaggeration to state that it could be vital to the future well-being of both my province as well as Canada.
Forestry, as we know, has been de-emphasized by previous governments. It is an attitude that is strange to me. It is a strange approach to an industry which is the largest in Canada. It is number one in our exports. It is an industry that is in a position to help meet the ever-growing demands for forest products in the world.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the present government has moved decisively to support the forest sector. Now with this bill a full federal forestry department will be created, and will provide national leadership in generating and applying forest and forest resource policies. Its initiatives and programs will support the government's commitment to environmentally sustainable economic development. It will make forestry agreements with individuals, organizations as well as other governments. It will conduct and promote research and development in the forestry sector.
If anyone still wonders about the need for national leadership in the forestry sector, I would like to take a few minutes to just briefly outline the magnitude of the forest products industry in Canada.
Over $40 billion of product is produced by the forest industry. There are over $20 billion worth of exports. As I said earlier, it is the largest exporter in Canada. In fact, Canada is the world's largest exporter of forest products. We see that British Columbia probably produces close to half of the products in lumber. But if you look at the total forest products industry across Canada, you will see that Ontario has 212,000 people working in forestry. Quebec has 230,000 people, more than in British Columbia. In British Columbia we have 216,000 people working in the forest industry. Atlantic Canada which needs the work that the forest industry can provide, currently has
September 29, 1989

66,000 people employed in the forest industry. Across the prairies there are 46,000 people employed.
One thing we have to understand when we talk about forestry in Canada is that very few of our forest lands are, in fact, controlled by the federal government. It is the provinces that control the forest lands. There is a need for this government to provide leadership, but it has to be done in a co-operative manner. It is this government over the last five years that has shown the initiative to initiate that leadership and the mood of co-operation that is essential.
It is far more than what we have done and are doing in terms of jobs. This is an industry for the future. It is for that reason that I feel it is imperative that this new forestry department is in a position to provide the leadership and the co-operative approach to develop our future.
When speaking to this bill everyone in the House has acknowledged this government and its initiation of the FRDA projects across Canada which have been universally acceptable. They are considered by all Canadians to have finally put the emphasis in forestry where it should be. That has been done in co-operation with the provinces.
Many people have said that the FRDA projects are replacing forests that have been taken by industry. That is really not how we have used these FRDA dollars. I would like to emphasize that there are many things that can impact our forest land. There are natural growth stands that are too thick and therefore produce crops that are unhealthy and do not have good trees. We have lands destroyed by forest fires that have not naturally regenerated. In many parts of Canada thousands of acres have been hit with the blight of various diseases that affect our trees. It is these areas of Canada, insufficiently restocked areas of our forest lands, that the FRDA projects have been attacking over the past four years.
It is in fact to the future that we should look with these. We could double the volume of logs now brought in to the forest industry if we properly farm our forests. If we do the thinning, natural fertilizing, and the proper
Government Orders
processing of those forests, we can double the amount of fibre that we take off those lands. We also have the capacity to use the wood that is now considered waste.
For instance, 50 per cent of the wood that is brought into the sawmills is not utilized in forest products per se. It is either burnt or consumed as energy. All that 50 per cent waste is potentially usable fibre, and it is learning how to use that fibre that will create many of the jobs we require in the forest industry.
There are also many new products that this government can help ensure that get past the point of just talking about and that we actually get into the process of producing and exporting.
There is another area I would like to mention. The environmental ramifications of the forest industry have been mentioned by many people. We cannot just log the forests. We have to do it in such a way that it meets the demands that we place on it for proper environmental use. It has to be done so that all the industries that want to share our forest resources are in a position to do so. Meeting that challenge and demand is going to be where this new department of forestry can paste its brightest star on the calendar board.
I know that many have criticized the budget. They say that the budget for the forestry is not sufficient, that we should be putting more money in it. We cannot just throw money at these problems. The Canadian public expects us to do more for less in this government.
We will do well to follow the example of many industries in Canada and the United States which have shown that the pursuit of excellence is possible and that we can in fact address and solve the problems exercising leadership and co-operation. Hopefully we will not have to go to the Canadian people for vast sums of money to achieve that.
In closing, I would like to say that this bill is about our commitment to a vital industry and it is about the commitment to the birthright of our future children.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his speech. He is a fellow British Columbian whose riding actually abuts mine. I certainly welcome his contributions.

Government Orders
I have a brief comment and a question or two for the member. The parliamentary secretary earlier in debate today made a comment that I would like some clarification from the member on, if he is able to give clarification. He stated that the legislation has to be passed before we can get on with the renewal of new forest agreements. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary is sure of that comment. As a government member from Cariboo-Chilcotin, perhaps the hon. member can give us some clarification. Clearly that has not been part of the discussion to date on renewed forest agreements. This is certainly the first comment we have heard that this legislation has to pass before any new forest agreements can be approved. It is those forest agreements that I would like to comment on and also ask a question.
The government members opposite and ourselves included have talked about the valuable contribution that these forest agreements have made to reforestation and intensive silviculture in all the provinces. Of course government members have lauded their support of those. We would be interested in their support in renewing these agreements. I remind the members that there are currently three forest agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that expired at the end of March, and there are ongoing discussions in B.C. about renewing our forest agreement.
In light of the fact that in the Western Diversification Fund available funds for new federal-provincial agreements have been identified at around $242 million, and in light of the fact that representations by the provinces and others on forestry agreements alone total nearly $400 million, I would like to ask the member if he can give us an idea, because the minister to date certainly has not nor has the finance minister, what the provinces might be able to expect in a renewed forest agreement and other economic agreements when in fact there is such a pittance in the Western Diversification Fund.


Mr. Worthy:: Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to any more knowledge than the member for Prince George on the subject of FRDA. I know that they are in process. I personally feel that the formation of the full forestry department which will elevate the current Minister of State to full minister status will in fact put him in a position to influence from within the federal government and in that new position to have more impact with provincial forestry counterparts.
The expedient passage of this current bill and the formation of the full department will be a very positive step toward the new FRDAs. I really do appreciate that the member from Prince George is fully on board the train that was started by the Conservatives on these agreements.
I have heard him many times speak strongly for the FRDA programs that we now have and how essential the new ones will be. We do appreciate his support. It is continuing to be high priority on the government agenda, and I can assure the member that it is of extremely high priority on this member's agenda.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question deals very specifically with what is a blight on B.C.'s economic horizon, that is the fact that on an ongoing basis raw logs are being exported with no value added.
Raw logs have been exported from the coast of British Columbia in the following manner: in 1984, 12 per cent of the lumber output was raw logs with no value added; in 1985 it was almost 9 per cent; in 1986 it was almost 10 per cent; in 1987 it was 10 per cent; and in 1988 it was 9 per cent. Of course the member knows that exporting raw logs is exporting jobs from Canada.
I would like to know what specific provisions the new forestry minister will undertake to stop this blatant export of Canadian jobs at the expense of Canadian foresters.


Dave Worthy: I can't speak for the minister, Mr. Speaker, nor will I attempt to, but I can explain a little about the export of raw logs which I do not support, either, under most circumstances.
There was very little exporting of logs from the Pacific coast until we hit the severe recession in the 1980s. At that time many of the loggers up the coast had no market for their logs. At that point the provincial government expanded on the permits to export.
Unfortunately those exports continued for some time. There have been many representations by myself as an individual, from some people in the industry, from the unions, and Jack Munro, the president of IWA, to that very point over the past year. In fact, the provincial government has made changes to its exporting. The exporting of those logs is being wound down and now only special circumstance type logs that we cannot take advantage of in our markets will be exported in the years to come.
September 29, 1989


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Pembroke-Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to speak on Bill C-29, the organization bill for a new forestry department in Canada, I must say that I am always appalled by the government doing something such as this, which is a tremendous idea that we support but putting no money where its mouth is to do the job. To do something without a financial commitment on the part of the government is wrong.
This government can put money into a new forestry department and it is not throwing money to the winds, because we all know that with forestry being such a tremendously important industry to Canada that all Canadians will get their money back in the returns in future years.
If we do not have that commitment today to rebuild, to grow greater forests in this country, to replant lands that should never have been deforested in the first place, if we do not move out there and lay the groundwork for this tremendous industry in the next decades of Canadian economic life, then we are not going to have a solid a forestry business.
The lack of financial commitment to produce something that is going to bring great financial returns in the future is the wrong philosophy. I have heard members of the Conservative Party in this debate give us this age old slogan that they try to peddle across this country: "This government must do more with less".
The Canadian people out there are fully cognizant that this government's real idea is to do less for more. That is the whole scenario behind their tax grab and everything else that goes on around here. This business of telling the people of Canada that the government is going to do more with less is as phoney as a $3 bill. They are in fact doing less for more.
To give you an idea of what they are doing by way of less, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is point to the devastation that the Minister for International Trade in 1986 did to the softwood lumber industry in this country. She signed the memorandum of understanding that allowed 15 per cent export tax to go on softwood lumber from this country into the United States.
Why did she do that? Members of the northern Ontario caucus, for one group, led by my distinguished
Government Orders
seat-mate from Algoma, can certainly tell you what it meant. We travelled from sawmill to sawmill, from town to town, in northern Ontario in the month of February. Everywhere we went, industry and labour alike in small community Ontario were telling us that the Conservative government sold the softwood lumber industry down the drain in order to get their international free trade agreement.
It is true, because immediately after they signed the memorandum of understanding slapping the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber going into the U.S., the U.S. signed because it wanted to protect its own manufacturers in the United States.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a government of Canada going around raving and saying what a great job we have done to sign a free trade agreement when in fact what we have is protectionism, protectionism by the United States, protectionism that was bought by the Conservative government on that late day of 1986 when it sold the softwood lumber industry down the drain and then the U.S. came forward and signed the free trade agreement after its own industry had been protected? Protectionism, Mr. Speaker, is not something you talk about in the same tone, in the same operation as you talk about free trade. Never. They are two absolutely opposite subjects.
Since then under this protection the Conservative government calls free trade the Americans have improved their sawmills. They go to the banks and get loans and they improve their manufacturing processes. Now they are filling the markets that have been traditionally filled by Canadian business over the years.
You can drive anywhere, Mr. Speaker, around the province of Ontario today and you see lumberyards filled more so than I have ever seen in all the years I have been in this House or when I was growing up in a rural area. It is there. It is a fact of life. People are being laid off, so let's not talk about this great positive thing that they are doing for the lumber industry in this country.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we support the establishment of a forestry department in Canada, but we support one that is going to have some clout. This minister is not going to have any clout under this bill because he has to go to other ministers in cabinet to beg for his finances.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
It is good to have our excellent forestry research institutions under this departmental roof. I know they are going to be very happy with that.
If we are going to make use of the tremendously positive work, the work that is being done for the future of this country by our forestry research institutions across Canada, then we have to do something out in the field to complement it. We have to grow trees. We have to have an over-all plan. This government has no plan whatsoever.
The first thing that should happen is a federal-provincial meeting of forestry and natural resources ministers across this country with the minister of forestry and the minister should have something to bargain with. He should not have to go to them with hat in hand when he is discussing the future of an important industry in this country. It is not as if we are putting money into something where there will not be any returns. If this government is so gung-ho about great private enterprise in this country, which it has echoed time and time again, why does it not put its money where its mouth is and have a plan to build up the forests in this country and do something?
We have here a very good statement from the Canadian Institute of Forestry, and this has been discussed on the floor of the House before. The Canadian Institute of Forestry would like the new department to have a clearly stated national responsibility, and that responsibility is not clearly stated. It does not have it. The institute wants federal leadership in forestry matters, research and technology transfer, forest resource development, federal-provincial agreements, forest resource data, industry marketing, trade and economics, international forestry- and I mentioned how important international forestry is-human resource, important employment and education programs, and public awareness.
The act should make provision for an interdepartmental committee on forestry so that Forestry Canada can provide federal leadership in the forestry sector. An interdepartmental committee is not new. We have had that before. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of parks, wildlife, lands, waters, surveying, mapping and management of federal forest lands within the mandate of the department. Those are just some of the ideas expressed for this bill.
I want to leave a very positive suggestion in closing my speech. There has to be co-ordination on the jurisdiction of natural resources in this country. I think this is going to be the grounds for a major constitutional discussion at the federal-provincial level in years to come, if we are going to have real co-ordination.
We have several counties in eastern Ontario: Renfrew, Hastings, Lanark, Frontenac, Victoria-Haliburton, Muskoka, Nipissing and others. This is one area where we could have a major reforestation program in these areas where trees must be grown. There is a great expanse of tremendous resource across northern Ontario where people depend upon it for their one community livelihoods. It is a matter of everyday bread and butter. That is the case in many small towns in eastern Ontario as well. So we have a great deal in common here, Mr. Speaker.
There is absolutely no reason why this federal minister cannot sit down with the provincial minister of natural resources and draw up a major plan that will plant trees across this province and across the country.
All this is very, very important to lay the groundwork for it and to show that we are serious about replanting lands that should be left in forestry to show that we are serious working with industry to replant trees that are cut. They will co-operate with on this because it is their future too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. Questions and comments.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest. He is concerned primarily about Canada's forestry polity. I would remind him that since 1984, our Government has emphasized silviculture in a remarkable way by increasing its budget over 300 per cent; this should reassure him. His province, Ontario, has been the main beneficiary.
September 29, 1989

Secondly, he was also concerned about what the Department's mandate might be. I would say it is to provide national leadership in terms of policy. I would reassure him, Mr. Speaker, that the new Department's mandate is to develop and coordinate forestry policies and programs at the national level, to do forestry research and development and encourage it as well, and to work closely with industry and the provincial and territorial agencies concerned in various areas related to the use and protection of forests.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the new Department will work closely with the other federal Departments interested in forests, including Environment Canada, External Affairs and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation is first and foremost intended to make this new Forestry Department a full-fledged department with a minister who will have a free hand to negotiate with the provinces and the other departments concerned for the enhancement of forestry, as we did throughout our last term in office and as we are prepared to do now with the new mandate.

Mr. Hopkins Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the work on silviculture that the hon. member mentioned is nothing new. That too has been going on for years in the very capable hands of the excellent research establishments that we have across this country.
I note too that you mention that the department's mandate would have the co-ordination of forestry programs. That is clearly understood. That is nothing new either. You say that they will work closely with other departments. I would hope so. They are going to have to depend on other departments for their financing because the government has failed to give the new department its own financing.
I would also like to ask the hon. member whether or not the present Conservative government will renegotiate the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber that the Minister for International Trade signed on New Year's Eve of 1986. Will you go back to the drawing board, sit down with the United States, and negotiate your way out of that 15 per cent penalty that you have put on the softwood lumber industry in Canada?
Government Orders
That was a devastating move. It is still having its effect, because not only do they have to contend with paying 15 per cent tax to export the lumber to the U.S., but they also have to contend with higher interest rates in Canada, and there is no indication that they are going to go down, particularly with the introduction by this government of a 9 per cent sales tax that is inflationary.
At the time that that memorandum of understanding was signed in late 1986, the Canadian dollar was at about 71 cents exchange with the American currency, and today it is at about 83 cents, so the lumber industry has lost another 12 per cent right there on the exchange rates alone. What about the spokes in the wheel of progress? You are certainly going to clean the spokes out of the wheel. There is no question about that. I just wonder whether the government is prepared to sit down and negotiate its way out of that 15 per cent penalty that it put on the softwood lumber industry in Canada vis-a-vis the United States in order that the United States would then turn around and sign a free trade agreement and make the softwood lumber industry the goat of the free trade industry.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this summer I had a rare privilege and one which unfortunately is not accessible to every Canadian. I had an opportunity as a city person-my idea of a forest was a walk through Gage Park-to visit northern and western Canada through northern Alberta, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia and had a chance to see, first-hand, some of the beauty of our land and also to begin to understand the challenge that will face any government and any ministry of forestry.
I would like to begin by pointing out the basic concern that I have about this particular bill. First, we are calling it a ministry for forestry. Forestry implies that the function of the forest is to be simply certainly cut down, because forestry is the action of foresting lumber. If we called it simply the ministry of forests we would begin develop an understanding of how we have to treat our forests in a sustainable manner.
One of the things that awed me as I flew over various parts of British Columbia and had a chance to visit the Kutzamateen and to go to the Carmanah Valley was the sheer beauty, splendour and the age of some of our own forests. We have heard a lot of talk about the Amazonian rain forests and how Canadian and worldwide efforts are being made to save the Amazonian rain forests, but in

Government Orders
our own country there seems to be a lack of understanding of our own capacity to preserve old growth forests.
Let us examine this particular initiative of the government in establishing and putting some emphasis on our forests not only as a unique tool of economic opportunity but also as a unique reflection of our heritage and, I think, a symbol of what our country has been and could be in the future.
If we step back for a moment and begin to re-examine the basic premise of a ministry of forestry and start to integrate some of the findings and understandings that we drew from the United Nations Report on Our Common Future chaired by Madam Brundtland, one of the points made in that particular report and which was certainly re-emphasized in the Liberal Task Force Report on Forests released in March, 1989, is that if we do not properly husband our resources and if we do not properly manage our forests in a way that is sustainable for future generations, while we may be embroiled in short term arguments about the disposition of certain kinds of lumber, we will not have a sustainable resource for future generations.
I was very concerned when I read the bill to discover that there is no specific reference to sustainable development. There is no specific federal mandate on how we can maintain our forests and what percentage of our forests can be reasonably harvested in the short term to guarantee the economic prosperity that we care about, while at the same time making sure that we have a resource for future generations.
I do not see, for example, any discussion about the whole question of the shipping of raw logs. If I look at the report written by, among others, the Member for Kenora-Rainy River, one of our jobs as legislators is obviously to ensure the economic viability of our own communities which is very much dependent on the harvesting of our forests. At the same time we should ensure that our forests are harvested in a manner that is value added. That means jobs for Canadians.
I pointed out an example in my question to an hon. member from British Columbia of one way that is not happening. I sat in the office of the Haida people in the Queen Charlottes and watched two barges go by in the short space of about three or four hours. According to
their estimates, they had approximately $1 million worth of logs in each of the barges.
I later had an opportunity to meet with representatives from the industry, including representatives from MacMillan Bloedel. I asked them how many raw logs were being exported from British Columbia. I was shocked recently when I got the actual figures for the industry as a whole along the coast, and specific figures relating to that particular company.
In 1988, post-recession; in 1987, post-recession; in 1986,1985,1984, and 1983, almost 10 per cent of the logs that were harvested in British Columbia have been sent offshore in raw form. What kind of government policy, whether it be federal or provincial, would permit the exporting of raw logs at a time when our own sawmills want to work? They wanted to add the value and they wanted to be able to sell a product that has a value added that means jobs for Canadians. The member for Kenora-Rainy River was just telling me about the situation in his own community where you have two operations, one on the Canadian side of the border, and one on the American side of the border. The harvesting is done in Canada, the pulp is ground in Canada and then it is sent off to the United States for processing.
If we are going to intelligently use our forests, then surely we should have a system in place to make sure that our yields can be sustained and to ensure that the value is added here in Canada for Canadian jobs, not shipped off to other countries where they can literally manufacture products from our woods and sell them back to us at 10 or 100 times the value of the original product.
That is what an intelligent forest policy should encompass, not simply the TFLs and not simply a licence for clear-cutting which is what has essentially been the case in federal and provincial legislation in the past. Certainly we need a renewal of FRDA agreements, but we need a renewal of FRDA agreements that takes into consideration the fact that our resources are becoming more limited.
I flew over vast regions of British Columbia. Canadians should have an opportunity to see this, by way of video. I am sure the same holds true for northern Ontario. I will be in Sault Ste Marie in a few days to find out. But when you are driving by and you see-
September 29, 1989



-the border, you see, there are tall trees, no problems, the only way you can really have a good idea of how badly depleted our forests are is to fly over the land. Unfortunately most Canadians never have the opportunity to see them from the air, they have to rely of figures released by the companies.

Look at Carmanah. Is it little wonder that Canadians get frustrated by some of our corporate policies when the decision whether or not to log the slopes leading into a forest that is actually older than many of the Amazon rain forests is made on a study done by the company wanting to log it? Is it any wonder that the public is a little skeptical? People are saying, "Step back. We want an independent analysis of what is sustainable. We want the national government of our country to have a policy with respect to forest management". It is not enough to say it is a provincial matter.
One of the major flaws in this bill is that there is no national mechanism for dispute resolutions. Whether you are looking at Carmanah or Tofino or logging prospects in northern Ontario, the issue of dispute settlement is going to be primordial to the success of any particular forest policy.
At the moment the federal government by way of this bill has completely abdicated any responsibility in that area.
We think on that particular issue we will be moving some very important amendments. We intend to make this a bill that respects the demands of the Brundtland Commission and respects what should be our common future.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I should like to remind her that cutting rights fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The federal Government has nothing whatsoever to do with awarding and administering cutting rights, that is a provincial matter.
While I am at it I might draw her attention to clause 6 of the Bill under which the Minister is empowered to
Government Orders
co-ordinate the development and implementation of forestry and forest resources policy, and of programs and practices established pursuant to that policy.
The Minister will also have authority to assist the development of Canadian scientific and technological capabilities in forest management. He will be responsible for promoting the development and application of forest management codes and standards, and he will have regard to the sustainable development of Canada's forest resources and the enhancement of the international competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Bill answers the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I urge her to give her support so the legislative measure may be adopted as soon as possible, for everyone agrees that our country needs a Department of Forestry to ensure continued growth and sign agreements with the provinces so as to exploit the full potential of our forest industry.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is ages ago since people used to say that PCBs, too, fell under provincial jurisdiction.
I think that what the Canadian people are now saying to all political parties is that our forests and all our resources come under federal jurisdiction wherever national interest must be protected.
Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) claim that Mrs. Brundtland supported him when he got an award in Washington for his environmental plan.
If Canada wants an environmental plan, we should, as the Brundtland report suggests, set aside 12 per cent of our forests and natural land for the enjoyment of future generations.
If we maintain that the implementation of forestry policy is strictly a provincial matter it follows that we refuse to assume our national responsibilities with regard to our children. I emphasize that point, and the Minister must agree with me to a certain extent, otherwise he would not have created a Department of Forestry. But, since he has done so, I urge him to ensure that every decision is made on the basis of sustainable development, which is not mentioned in the Bill as it now stands, and to set a course for Canada. It is the politicians who are dragging their feet on that issue.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, in the discussion relative to stumpage fees and the claim that this has nothing to do with the federal government, I wonder if the hon. member for Hamilton East could comment on this question. The Conservative Government of Canada put much emphasis on listening to the United States' complaint about low stumpage fees in Canada and that resulted in the Minister for International Trade of the day signing the memorandum of understanding that penalized the Canadian softwood lumber industry by a 15 per cent tax before going into the United States.
Then the Conservative Government threw that into the hands of the provinces and the provinces had to negotiate their way out by going to Ottawa and trying to get separate agreements. When they raise their stumpage fees the Americans relieve them of that portion of the 15 per cent. Yet we hear from the federal government that stumpage fees have nothing to do with it. If they have nothing to do with the federal government then why did it throw this mess at the provinces on the eve of signing the free trade agreement with the United States? There seems to be quite a diabolical change here.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think you can find the answer to that question in the Liberal task force on forestry policy, which I think is required reading for anyone who is interested in developing an intelligent forest policy in this country.
If you look at the actual cost to Canadians per thousand board foot, the loss to Canadians as a result of that FTA-provoked excise tax which we inflicted upon ourselves in typical Conservative fashion, bowing down as we have before the Americans at any opportunity, is actually costing our Canadian workers $71.59 per thousand board foot in lost revenue as a direct result of the FTA-provoked excise tax which was imposed.
That is one of the reasons there are sawmills in northern Ontario that are closed at the moment and one of the reasons that we think an intelligent forest policy would be introduced by a Liberal government.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, because I feel that this initiative of creating a new forestry department is an extremely important one to Canada. There is no industry more important to Canada than the forest products industry and it is a particularly important industry to the Province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, to my own South Shore riding where we have major participation in the forest industry. I have spoken on many occasions about the importance of our Christmas tree industry. I would take this opportunity to again remind and urge all Canadians that one way to support our forest products industry is to use real Christmas trees as opposed to artificial ones. Real Christmas trees and the best ones, I might say, come from the Queens and Lunenburg Counties of Nova Scotia.
In our area we also have a great deal of other types of forest products industries. We have several sawmills, literally thousands and thousands of acres of woodlots, and we have two major forest products plants. We have the Canexel plant in East River which produces a hardboard used for walls and doors and various other things. We have the very important Bowater Mersey plant which I might say is this year celebrating its 60th anniversary of 60 years service to the people not only of Liverpool and Queens County, but indeed the people of Nova Scotia and Canada. That very important company which produces about 240,000 tonnes of newsprint a year is an important industry in our area. It clearly establishes, along with the other things I have mentioned, the importance of the forest products industry to us.
Therefore, I think it is a very insightful, forward looking, and a very wise move that the government has taken with this initiative of creating a new forestry department. It goes hand in hand with the recent announcements by the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency that a new regional development umbrella agreement has been signed with the Province of Nova Scotia. This agreement includes a $45 million two-year forestry agreement. I might say that is not only a priority of the government of Canada, but a priority recognized by the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick some months earlier.

Government Orders
The details and application of the new Forestry Resource Development Agreement will be worked out between the proposed forestry department and the province. It will extend activities funded under the previous agreement. It will increase funding for research and development as well as marketing initiatives. Under the two-year agreement $22.5 million will be spent annually in Nova Scotia for forestry. As a result of this agreement, the forest sector in our province will be better able to meet future market challenges.
We have all heard about the forest sector's overwhelming importance to Canada's economy as a whole. We know that global demands for forest products will grow in the 21st century. Clear-headed Canadians see the opportunities afforded by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Right across Canada, forest industries will have secure access to the whole North American market.
This bill is about tomorrow. It is about the environmental economic well-being of our children and their children's children. These are not responsibilities that we in this Flouse can take lightly. These are major challenges. They must be faced resolutely. Canadians expect no less. If generations yet unborn could speak, they would tell us to act now and in the manner that we are. That is why the government of Canada is honouring its commitment to establish a true federal department of forestry. It is determined to take this first step toward economic development based on environmentally rational policies. Let no one doubt the government's resolve.
In Canada's forest sector, economic progress will be coupled with sensible resource husbandry. Bill C-29 is the first step toward true national leadership for Canada's forest sector.
Some hon. members say that they are concerned about the perceived reductions in the present Minister of State's budget. The operative word here is "perceived". Such concerns flow from an examination of last February's Main Estimates. They provide an incomplete picture. In fiscal year 1988-89 the Main Estimates show $234.8 million for forestry Canada and 1,281 person years. In the present fiscal year the figures are $206 million and 1,226 person years.
However, other factors must be considered. As needs become known adjustments will be made through Supplementary Estimates voted by the House. Already the original $206 million for forestry Canada has risen to $211 million. The original 1,226 person years mentioned in the Main Estimates have become 1,328, an increase of 47 over the previous year. Our approach is gradual and rational.
This year most Forest Resource Development Agreements are running out. Some have expired. The sum set aside at the beginning of the fiscal year do not reflect what will be spent after new agreements are negotiated. Often when agreements are ending, major spending has been completed. What kind of managers would we be if we allocated huge sums to undertakings that are winding down? Why would we earmark billions of dollars to expired agreements without knowing future spending requirements? That is not how Canadians want us to manage their economy.
It has been suggested that the new department will not control its own budget because over-all amounts for forestry are set in umbrella regional development agreements. These are reached by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology for Ontario and Quebec, by Western Economic Diversification for western Canada and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for Atlantic Canada. That is how regional development funds are initially committed. To suggest that there is something strange in this approach is, quite frankly, strange itself. The new federal department of forestry will have exclusive responsibility for negotiating the terms and application of each federal-provincial forest agreement. The proposed department and the agreements it will administer are an important first step. The new agreements will mark the real transition to intensive management of Canada's forests.
The new department will confirm national forestry leadership. I am not talking about national leadership through attempts through jurisdictional power grabs. The provinces own the resource. Forestry is a provincial responsibility.
We propose methods that will allow each province to use its forest sector efficiently. What we seek is co-operation that will benefit Canada's forest sector through policies of environmentally sustainable economic development. What we offer is support that will pinpoint the right products for a highly competitive and constantly

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
shifting international market. What we are building is partnership with the provinces and the industry to do two things: one, base all forest sector progress on a national commitment to sustainable development; two, ensure that governments and industry make the right market decisions. That is how we will remain the world's top exporter of forest products. That is how we will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Canadians.
The new department will do this by carrying out the mandates it has been given by the legislation. These mandates are to expand forestry research, promote development of national goals, offer policies of forest conservation and generate federal-provincial co-operation of forestry. Last but not least, one of the new department's mandates is educational. It will inform the public so that Canadians will demand integrated and balanced forest management of the highest order.
Other nations' experiences have shown that this approach will protect our wilderness heritage and it will do this while allowing us to realize higher yields and earnings from renewable resources. Here I want to stress the importance of the emphasis on research. Research will show us the best way to couple sustained development policies to market demands. Research will also ensure that our industry provides the products which the market seeks. That is why research is one of the principle objectives of this bill.
If we act sensibly and quickly we will create thousands of new jobs through expanded markets and intensive forest management. The new department will be a centre of excellence from which the Government of Canada can reach out to the provinces and the industry. By doing so it will serve the common good.
Bill C-29 lays the foundation for a national approach that will allow Canada's forest sector to provide prosperity rooted in policies of sustainable development. This legislation reflects the government's determination to manage change so that Canadians can meet the challenges of the future while deriving maximum benefit from the opportunities it offers. That is why the government is so deeply committed to this legislation, that is why I support it, that is why it is an excellent idea, and that is why I encourage all members of the House to support it.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I must say that was a real barn-burning speech we heard. I would like to commend the-


Brian L. Gardiner: At least he's not burning Christmas trees right now!


Robert Daniel Nault: The member seems to come from an area which is similar to mine but, he must admit, a lot smaller in size. I suggest to the whole House that I am sure he understands the importance of the forestry industry.
Therefore, I would like to ask him a specific question which is very important to me and to areas that do have a large amount of trees. It relates to the 15 per cent export tax that was imposed, and there is now a memorandum of understanding put right in the free trade agreement. Does the member feel that that is to the benefit of producers and to those who are in the forest industry at this time, that they have this export tax put on them by the government? Does the member feel there should be a discussion by those individuals on the other side to remove this 15 per cent export tax before-as has happened in northern Ontario where 900 jobs have been lost already, it is possible that in his location, even though it is a bit smaller with not as many trees-he will start having unemployment situations as we have.
Currently we have 30 communities in northern Ontario that rely solely on forestry. We look very strongly to the leadership of the gentleman I am speaking of to try to help us to educate the government side on the importance of removing that 15 per cent export tax. I look forward to his intervention on this matter.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by my colleague opposite, although I must comment on his remark about the size of our province. We have always, as you know, specialized in quality and produce nothing but the best in the maritimes. That applies, I might say, to our Christmas trees. I am sure you know that over 50 per cent of the Christmas trees that are exported from Canada come from Nova Scotia. They generate $30 million in revenue and that is very beneficial. We do know a little bit about countervails because we had a little problem in one situation ourselves which, fortunately, this government had the wisdom to deal with in a manner that best served our industry.
September 29, 1989

I cannot profess to having great expertise on the issue you raised because, of course, it doesn't apply in the maritimes. I do recall at the time, however, that it was something requested by the industry and the provinces involved.
It relates to trade with the United States and one of the things that our forest products industries are benefiting from, as will other resource sectors-including the fishery which is critically important in my own area-is the access that that agreement gives us to the American market. In the long run I don't think there is any question that the forest industries are going to be the over-all beneficiaries from the free trade agreement. Therefore, we supported it wholeheartedly in our area.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's very good interventions in this House on Christmas trees are appreciated. He will know on the softwood lumber tariff that the Minister of State for Forests himself has admitted that it has been a bad deal for this country and that we are working to change it. It is something of course that the government did negotiate.
My question to the member concerns his comments about the importance of the forest agreements with which we agree, on some of the concepts of sustainable development. One of the rules in the Brundtland Commission on sustainable development is access to information so that legislators and other people are able to make the correct decisions on forestry. In this case the minister and the government have refused to let the forestry committee know what the criteria are for some of the new forest agreements, particularly in western Canada.
I wonder if the member supports the view that that information should be withheld from the forestry committee or does he share our view that we should be told what the federal government is looking at in these new forest agreements?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure what it has to do with the matter before the House at this time, which is the creation of a new forestry department. I am sure my hon. friend is aware of the fact that co-operative agreements are negotiated between the ministers I mentioned in my speech and the various provinces involved and that within those agreements there is an allocation as to where those funds go. The various departments such as the forestry department
Government Orders
become involved in negotiating directly the details of how that agreement will work in the particular jurisdiction involved so that both federal and provincial priorities are recognized, and it works to the benefit of all.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry I would hope that in due course we get this important legislation through the House, and I think we should remember that that is the priority. It is my hope that this bill will achieve second reading today. One of the things that I would hope would happen soon after that is that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry would have an opportunity to take a look at the role of this department and to assist the minister and the government in seeing that that department is used to the best advantage of the forest industry and indeed for generations of Canadians to come.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who just spoke had kept on, there is no way that this bill would get passed today or even in the next session.
I want to open my remarks by referring to the Minister of State for Forestry. I appreciated his comments a few days ago when he was talking about this legislation, a bill to establish a department of forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to the other acts that affect the strongest industry in this country.
Before making those comments I would refer to the members from British Columbia who are in the House and are concerned about this industry as I am sure are my colleagues from northwestern Ontario and all parts of northern Ontario. A remark was made by my friend and colleague from Hamilton East just a short while ago with respect to the shipment of these magnificent trees from the west coast of the province of British Columbia to the Pacific Rim countries. There is a comment that goes around in our area. We say that you could almost walk to any Pacific Rim country, if you wanted to, across the Pacific Ocean by just walking on the barges that are carrying our natural resources in their raw state to these Pacific Rim countries that take our raw material, produce goods and products and then send them back to Canada to compete with products that we make, including pulp and paper and wood, right here in Canada.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
We have to have respect and appreciation for this natural resource. One of the fundamental problems that we have in northern Ontario is to secure the quality of trees for production purposes that the province of British Columbia seems to be shipping out in its raw state without adding any value to it. That in itself is not acceptable, and I am glad, as I said, that we have representation from the province of British Columbia here, and hopefully those representatives will be able to correct that terrible situation.
I paid special attention to the minister's remarks about how vital the forestry industry is to us. The establishment of a department of forestry is a positive step not only for northern Ontario but for all of Canada. As a member of Parliament for a northern Ontario riding, I agree fully with the minister's words relating to the importance of forestry.
The Canadian forestry industry is important to Canada. It provides employment for 8 per cent of our Canadian labour force. It supports 900,000 forestry manufacturing and service jobs. In 1988, forest land yielded more than $30 billion in the value of goods shipped from Canada. One out of every seven manufacturing dollars in Canada is related directly to the forestry industry. The forest sector contributes more than $17 billion to Canada's net trade balance, and this exceeds the net trade balance from agriculture, fisheries and mining combined. Forest products account for close to $25 billion in trade within our country alone.
Forestry is the largest industry in Canada. It is larger than the automobile and petroleum sectors. Forestry is Canada's number one industry and this industry must be recognized. This must dictate our approach to this very valuable industry to Canada.
When I talk to my friends in the forestry industry, particularly the past president of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, Dr. James Kyle who is also a forestry teacher at Lakehead University, I say that those statistics with respect to the forest industry in Canada are perhaps the best kept secrets in our whole country. The forestry industry is indeed the largest single industry in Canada and contributes more to our economy than any other
single industry. Unfortunately, the forestry industry does not tell us this story as it should.


Jesse Philip Flis: The government doesn't know it.
Mr. Comuzzi It looks like the government doesn't know it. I tell my friends in the forestry industry in jest that perhaps those people who administer the forestry section could best serve by administering the secret service, and that'way we will have complete secrecy with respect to that department.
Despite the forest industry's contribution to the national economy the statistics do not reflect the importance of this industry to over 300 communities in Canada which are dependent upon this industry for their sole survival. Some of those towns in the riding that I represent are Nipigon and Red Rock, Hurkett, Dorion, Pass Lake, Kakabeka Falls, and in these small communities, the people are not involved in the manufacturing process but they are involved in going out into the forests through spring, summer, fall and winter to harvest the trees and sell them to the mills where they are produced from that point.
I was interested in the remarks made by my friend from Kenora in northern Ontario that towns in his area are reliant on the forestry industry specifically. It is important to northern Ontario. More than 30 single industry towns are reliant on the 17 pulp and paper mills and over 325 sawmills of various sizes throughout all of the north. Towns like Dryden and Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Atikokan, Fort Francis, Terrace Bay, Marathon, Hearst and Kapuskasing. All rely on the forest industry and what happens in that industry. As my friend has stated so capably and ably before me, we in northern Ontario rely on the forest industry. It is the lifeblood of our communities.
You can understand full well, Mr. Speaker, how my constituents in northern Ontario have a special interest in the matters that relate to forestry. Therefore, I would like to comment for a few moments on the bill that is before this House.
Naturally, in principle, we favour the establishment of a separate department of forestry. One would assume that such a department would better able the government to reflect in its policies the realities of this industry.
September 29, 1989

As I said at the outset, I listened carefully to the Minister's words reflecting precisely how important the forestry industry is to Canada. His words were those of an astute man. However, we in northern Ontario tend to gauge one's performance based on actions rather than on words. As we say in the bush industry, you have to put your money where your mouth is. That is what we suggest the Minister do with respect to this bill. He should do things that are concrete for the forestry industry in our country.
If he really means what he has said, I challenge the minister to take the 15 per cent on our export lumber sales that is enshrined in the free trade agreement and cancel it according to section 9 of the memorandum of understanding. We have the complete concurrence of all of the industries in northern Ontario with respect to forestry that we should cancel unilaterally that memorandum of understanding with the United States so that we can indeed compete in the forest industry on a level playing field. We in northern Ontario are not afraid to compete with anyone in the United States.
In closing, and I know my time is short, this government has claimed that a forestry department would provide national leadership in the development and co-ordination of forest policy and programs and, consistent with its commitment to sustainable development, promote research and development in the forestry sector and encourage federal co-operation with industry, universities, provinces and territorial authorities in a wide range of activities related to forest management and protection.
I say in closing that I would be the first person on my feet to compliment the minister and those on the other side of the House if they were to come to grips with and take issue with the memorandum of understanding and cancel the 15 per cent export tax.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-29, the government's bill to establish a department of forestry, even though the government is five years late in doing so.
I think it is safe to say that the creation of a forestry department is strongly supported by all of Canadian society. We all realize that we need a strong forestry program in order to oversee and protect our vast
Government Orders
resource. This legislation will enable the government to have a better focus on activities pertaining to forestry.
In trying to accomplish this focusing in on forest activities, I certainly applaud the legislation. However, there are many problems with Bill C-29 that first must be addressed. Forestry and lumbering is not something that is new to in eastern Ontario and particularly to the Ottawa area. If one goes back in history to when Ottawa was known as Bytown in the early 1800s, lumbering was the major industry. The Ottawa River and the Gatineau River were the two vehicles that carried the logs from the lumber camps down to through to the sawmill, and that sawmill is still across the river from us in Hull, the E. B. Eddy plant.
Like the previous speaker, there are no forests in my riding of Nepean but we do have wood lots. One of the things we have done as a municipality is to recognize the importance of wood lots in our city. Because we are a rapidly developing municipality, the city of Nepean has moved forward to purchase those wood lots and put them in city land holdings so as not to allow the developers to cut these wood lots down for houses to be built in their place. I think that my city has played a major role in recognizing the importance of wood in Canada today.
Bill C-29 does not provide the forestry minister with much clout. Most of the funds for federal-provincial reforestation agreements will come from other federal departments and agencies. In other words the forestry department must stand in line with other departments to lobby the federal government for money.
Environmentalists are very concerned about this industry in Canada, and I do not think it is just in Canada. I think it is a global thing. In classrooms in schools today we hear children who are very, very concerned over the loss of our forests in Canada, Brazil and all other parts of the world. We hear about the warming effect, the greenhouse effect, all because of the loss of our forests and the effect it has on our environment.
If we are all to be concerned about our planet, we have to be concerned about the forest industry. The federal government must take a leadership role in reforestation and resource development as the municipalities such as my city have done and as the province of Ontario is doing.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
The Liberal Party supports the renewal of federal-provincial forestry agreements. The government must address the backlog of unsatisfactorily restocked forest land in Canada which continues to increase by 200,000 hectares per year. These stocks must be replaced because we are very rapidly falling behind in replacing them.
Bill C-29 does not provide Forestry Canada with financial control of forest resource development. The department cannot ensure the improved forestry practices are applied because the department does not have the necessary resources to do so.
The department will be unable to improve and increase the resource base across Canada as the bill is presently written today.
The government alleges that the purpose of the bill was to create a strong ministry which would positively represent the interests of the forest industry of Canada at the cabinet level. Yet, according to the Estimates tabled by the government, the new department will receive less money than the Canadian Forestry Service Agency that it will replace.
For example, the government's over-all budget for 1989-90 increased by $9.9 billion to $142.9 billion. The forestry budget for the same period has actually decreased by $28 million to $206.9 million. Furthermore, 47 persons were cut from the new forestry department, a 3.5 per cent reduction in persons compared to a total government reduction of 1,072 person-years or a 0.5 per cent reduction.
In conclusion, Canada needs a strong forestry department. It has been a long-standing policy of the Liberal Party of Canada that a forestry department ought to be created. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide the forestry sector with either the profile or the funds it deserves.
The forestry minister should be in control of forestry resource development agreements. He should not have to request funds from other departments. He should be in control of his own agenda and he will not be. I ask the government to make a strong commitment to the forestry branch. Although the bill is a step in the right direction, in its present state it is a superficial and token approach to our forest industry.
In the last five years since 1984, we have seen, particularly through FRDAs, the expenditure of $1,115 billion with no department, with a minister of state. While my friends opposite are supportive of the department and very critical of the amount of money provided, it should be pointed out that that $1,115 billion is a 300 per cent increase over the financial commitments of that crowd opposite from the previous time.
Most important is to recognize the opportunities available throughout government at the federal and provincial levels. Like my friend from Hamilton East, I also had the opportunity this summer to visit a project in my province that was supported by the federal-provincial agreement between the two levels of government. With the minister of forestry for the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I participated in the planting of the 50 millionth seedling at the tree nursery in Woodale outside Windsor in central Newfoundland.
What is critical in that process is that we have had to come together, not only two levels of government but a number of departments of both governments, to ensure that we have the forest resources that will feed the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador over the next number of years and centuries. One of the greatest advantages is the ability of a department like this to bring other departments together, going with government departments at the federal level to the provincial level and saying what it is we can do together.
In my part of the world, as with my colleagues from northern Ontario, Nova Scotia, parts of Quebec and even British Columbia, when we sign these agreements we sign them to do a number of things. Obviously protecting and enhancing and developing the forest resource is key. Quite clearly the creation, the preservation, the protection and the enhancement of jobs is critical and therefore the involvement of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
September 29, 1989

We have been able to develop, with the help of the youth strategy under the Department of Employment and Immigration, in a signed joint deal with the Newfoundland government and ACOA and the provincial department of mines and resources, a world-class training program for young people, a training program that will train people for two years in our forests in silviculture and in protecting and developing the resource.
We have the ability to jointly protect the resource through fire-fighting. We have the ability to jointly understand the resource better through the development of new products. We have traditionally depended on black spruce and fir. We are now growing juniper. Those opportunities, bringing departments together, bringing different levels of government together, is where the creativity and the imagination of all of us can come together to develop this industry to secure its past and our future.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments with regard to my comments on the forestry department. All of the things that this government is doing are certainly commendable, but surely he is kidding when he cannot recognize the fact that there are millions of dollars cut in the budget in the forestry division, that staffing has been cut back. Where is the dedication? Where is the commitment to this industry when there is a budget cut-back and a person-years cut-back? It is there in the figures. It is in the Minister of Finance's budget.
The member talks about agreements with the provinces. How many of those agreements are not signed? Quite a few. I believe six out of ten are still not signed. We have heard from my colleague from Thunder Bay who talked about the softwood lumber industry and the damage that is being done to the lumber industry in northern Ontario by the 15 per cent surcharge that has been added on. How can he ignore that? How can he say that his government is committed to this industry when he failed to do the things that I have mentioned here?
I would like this gentleman and this government to be serious about this industry. This, I believe, is our No. 2 industry in Canada. It has been our No. 1 industry from the early days of settlers in this country. We cannot ignore it. We cannot ignore the warming effect, the greenhouse effect, on our planet.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-29, an act to establish
Government Orders
the department of forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other acts, I would like to begin by congratulating the minister as another old sawmiller like myself with some 20 years in the industry. I understand also the minister's own commitment and experience in that industry as an owner-operator in his case. I know the two of us share the feeling that comes with the sweet smell of fresh cut wood, especially if it is mixed with salt air.
The minister's own experience in that industry stretches back over many years in the Peace River section of British Columbia. While I never dealt with him directly there, I know that his own experience and feeling both for the industry and the forests that sustain are strong. I know it is of some pleasure and relief to him that he has finally been able to give birth to the measure that is before us today, the establishment of a department of forestry.
In referring to the rather long gestation period, I would point out that in 1984 the Conservative Party and the present minister had some role to play in the forestry policy of that party. They said that we would have a forestry department immediately. It has been five years in coming. By any standard of measurement, that is a rather long gestation period. As one who has been involved in wood products labour for very many years, I always knew that forestry was hard labour, but five years' gestation is kind of ridiculous.
Be that as it may, I know there were many serious debates taking place between parties, between individual members within parties and between many others across the country during that period and the years preceding it over whether the correct and best route to go for the protection and enhancement of the forest industry was to have a separate department, or whether it would be more appropriate to have a ministry with an enhanced associate deputy minister and a strong team within a major government department.
It was also a matter of great concern to a number of others as to what type of department was appropriate if we were to promote and defend properly the interests of the industry and the resource. Should it be a production oriented department or is it more proper to put it in with the Department of the Environment? There were good arguments on all sides, and I think all of us in every party finally came to the conclusion that the best route to go was to have a separate ministry and a separate department.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
It is regrettable, however, that in establishing this department and for something that has taken so long we find it lacks one of the major instruments that surely any department has as its main purpose-the enhancement and protection of the forestry resource in Canada. The administration of and responsibility for forestry renewal does not rest within the mandate of that department, particularly in the negotiation of and the funding for the joint agreements which have done much during the last four to five years to finally give an appropriate measure of attention to the forest industry and to the forest resource.
In The Vancouver Sun on June 28, 1989, it was reported that officials from the Western Economic Diversification Office told MPs the day before that only $242 million in new money has been made available over the next five years for federal deals with the four western provinces. That much money is to be spread over four western provinces with 11 federal-provincial economic regional agreements. When you consider that during this past five years under FRDA in the province of British Columbia alone, there has been $150 million federal and $150 million provincial, that $242 million is obviously totally inadequate.
If we look at the estimates for the Western Economic Diversification Office, we find that the amount available to that office for its mandate has fallen by $40 million over the period 1988-89 to the 1989-90. Again, this is something that does not bode well. Many spokespersons within the industry and around the industry have suggested that it is entirely inappropriate for an agency such as the western diversification agency to have that kind of responsibility and power over what is in Canada the major contributor to our balance of trade surplus-if it is still a surplus-an industry which has such an impact on so many communities right across Canada, some 300 communities which are either solely or largely dependent upon the forest industry for their existence and welfare.
It is some time now since the first Canadian Forest Congress was held in the city of Toronto in 1978. I was there. It was just shortly after I was appointed as a regional representative for the International Woodworkers of America, not dealing with forestry policy as such,
but with the issue of with race relations within the forest industry.
I remember at that congress in 1978 it was still our concern that there was hardly any awareness among the public of Canada about the importance of this industry and the needs that the forest resource had. A phrase used was that the public could not see the lack of forest for the trees.
We have come a long way since then and there is a great deal of awareness among the public and among the people who work in and around the industry. Over the years that has created an ever-increasing sense of urgency in the political area as well.
While the creation of this department is obviously one sign of that increasing awareness among politicians as with the public, it is likely to be a long time before we can again focus public attention on another major step ahead in terms of the renewal of the forest resource in Canada. That is why it grieves me so much to see the lack of a strong mandate written into the legislation before us. It is a pity because it may be a long way away again. It has taken five years to get us this far from the time of the announcement that it was going to be done immediately. If we do not do it right now it may be a long, long time before we get a chance again.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are some 300 communities across Canada dependent upon the forest industry and many of them are within my own constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke. I know the figure 300 was used in a broad sense some four or five years ago, at the time that I was the member for Kootenay West, and since then we have at least one less community in my own area that is primarily dependent upon that industry. The mill where I reported to go back to work, some two weeks after the 1984 election, closed down permanently within days of my application to return to work. I was one of those who thought he had job security when I left this place in 1984, but I should have known better because I had realized for years and years that unless all people have job security no one has it. But I was rather forcibly reminded of that in the weeks following the election of 1984, and it had nothing to do with losing the election.

Now the employment within my own constituency within the forest industry is not much different than it was then. But what has happened there, as has happened in many other communities, is that many large, integrated operations have closed down. We have gone back to the days of a number of small operations which have much more hazardous working conditions. In many cases they conduct their logging operations in ways which are much less sensitive to the needs of the area. They pay their employees and thus pay their communities less for the resources that they utilize. They now have people working with them who are working for one-half or two-thirds of the wages that they used to earn. They have no benefits, except for those few required by law, and have no pensions. We have gone backwards in terms of what our people and our communities receive from that industry in many, many areas of Canada. And that in part is because of the small "c" conservative political agenda which has dominated much of North America over that period.
We hear a lot of concern about the environment. That is right and proper and it is long overdue. But I have always been one who believed that the environment had to do with more than just trees, minerals, air and water. People are part of the environment too; people tomorrow and people today. The job of any responsible politician and any responsible government is to accommodate and negotiate between those needs of people today and people tomorrow, recognizing that they are part of what we call the environment and ensuring that one is not sacrificed in too large a measure for the benefit of another.
In addressing part of the needs of the people, and there are hundreds and thousands of them across this country who have derived their livelihood from the harvesting of our forests, if we want to enlist them as allies which we must in preserving forests and in preserving the environment we must assure and guarantee to them some fair measure of equity. We cannot ask them simply to sacrifice themselves, their families and their communities for the future.
It is important that sacrifices be made but they must be shared. We must apportion to them in our reforestation and silvicultural programs an appropriate number of the
Government Orders
jobs at reasonable rates of pay with appropriate compensation. benefits and pensions for the future of themselves and their families working in those important areas of silviculture and forestry regeneration.
If we do not make those assurances, they will automatically dig in their heels and we will force the kinds of social conflicts that we have seen in the headlines over and over and over again. Our society cannot afford those conflicts on an ever-increasing basis. Our environment cannot sustain those conflicts on an ever-increasing basis and it is within our ability, as a community provincially, nationally and locally, to take such measures to ensure that any sacrifices to be made will be shared equitably across the board and that we will give as much respect and accord to those who are living and working in the present as to the future.
I have always been suspicious, whether it has been with other Socialists, Conservatives or Liberals, of any politician who says that we always have to do things for tomorrow at the expense of those today. We are equally as important. Besides, if we do not take both groups equally into account we will not take the kinds of measures that are necessary to preserve a future existence.
I know that a lot has been said about the FRDA agreement over the last five years and it has been an excellent agreement. I have had the opportunity, both formerly as a member of Parliament and during my four years in the wilderness, as it were, to visit a number of operations that were financed both by FRDA and by the agreements that were conducted prior to the existence of the Forest Renewal Development Agreements.
I can testify to the value of the work being done with minimal amounts of labour and, considering the importance of this industry and this resource, our forests, with the minimal amount of money spent we got tremendous value in terms of enhancement of the resource.
There was something that went on prior to the last five-year FRDA agreement in British Columbia. The B.C.-Canada FRDA agreement had $150 million federal and $150 million provincial, a total of $300 million over five years. That is some $30 million a year for each level of government.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
I would remind the members opposite that in the year prior to FRDA there was an agreement for which we had to fight for years to get. It was a one year agreement. There is a problem with short-term agreements. The five-year one was certainly welcome in that respect. It takes a lot of planning and co-ordination. There was a one-year agreement that saw $55 million dollars come from the federal government and $55 million from the province.
So in fact, if you measure it on that year-by-year basis, when this government was elected in 1984, its commitment fell from $55 million a year to $30 million a year. But the government probably got just as good a value because it was at least planned over a five-year period. That allowed the provincial authorities who have the prime jurisdiction, as they should, over forest management and forest renewal to plan in advance to attempt to get the appropriate number of seedlings in place, to do the necessary preparatory work and to have the necessary skilled labour in place, because we had not done an adequate job of reforestation prior to that time and we needed to train forestry technicians and silviculturalists. It allowed that to happen. But because of the foot dragging in this last year we have thrown away the benefits of that kind of advance planning.
Even if the federal government were now to agree to spend more than it had over the past five years, when all the evidence shows it is going to spend less, it would get fewer results and do great damage to our resource simply because of the lack of lead time. Seedlings have not been produced, not adequate ones for the right places. Because of the privatization program that has taken place in the province of British Columbia where many of the seedlings are produced by independent contractors, largely made up of former employees of that province, they are left holding the bag, otherwise the taxpayers would have ended up holding the bag. It would have been unfair to the taxpayers and it is now unfair to those contractors, because these seedlings will probably not be used.
That shows the waste. You would think that a government that had shown enough sense to do things over a five-year period where the appropriate amount of planning could take place would realize how important it is
for that kind of planning on a long sustained basis to continue, but apparently it has not.
Now we are seeing jurisdiction not placed within the new ministry of forests but placed in another agency which may be very valuable, the Western Diversification Fund. But it has different priorities. It does not have the understanding of the particular problems of that industry, so we can expect to see even more of that helter-skelter unplanned approach because these people simply will not understand the industry. You do not plan to regenerate a forest in one year or one month. You have to do it over the long haul. I am sure the minister understands that. If he does, why does he not get it through the thick skulls of his colleagues? He knows what the necessities are and knows the urgency. I only wish his other colleagues would come to appreciate the particular needs of that industry.
Another disturbing trend has been in what we are now starting to see as some hints of Conservative plans to deal with forestry and some of the broad environmental concerns. The Conservatives and Liberals have been urging so-called market-driven solutions to our environment. But it is market mechanisms that have got us in the situation we are in now. As an example, according to the September 23 issue of The Financial Post, Environment Probe in Toronto is calling for the privatization of our-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the member but the member's time has expired.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the time available to me this afternoon to pose some questions to the House and in particular the proposed minister of forestry.
What Canadians want to know before this bill is passed is whether this is another mechanism to get the minister a bigger car, a better seat at the cabinet table, a larger expense account and a little more status among his colleagues or whether the forestry department is now going to do something. They want to know whether, in fact, it is going to be a real, substantial contribution to the making of proper policy in this country dealing with forests which is, after all, our largest employer and our most successful export market in many areas.

The forest industry is in deep trouble as a direct consequence of actions by this government. The real question is whether this new ministry of forestry and the new minister is going to be prepared to stand up finally with some courage and integrity and defend the forestry industry of Canada.
I hear comments from the gentleman who represents that large forestry area in Mississauga or Scarborough, wherever it is.
The fact of the matter is I have here a study done by Price Waterhouse for the forest industry in British Columbia. This is an objective, honest and clear account of just what disastrous effects the decisions by this government have had upon the forestry industry in British Columbia. Let me read you one quite startling fact: "In 1988 the net earnings of the industry in the lumber field alone plummeted from $352 million to $6 million."
The direct consequence of the softwood lumber agreement, the export tax, the stumpage fees, has been the cause of that decline. The lumber industry is losing markets and has increased costs and, as a result, it is losing money. When it loses money the industry loses the capital to reinvest in modernization. It loses the ability to provide for better technology, higher productivity and, therefore, loses what has been for the British Columbia forest industry perhaps its most important advantage, namely, its superior ability to produce logs at lower cost, at higher productivity and with better technology. Once it starts losing money of this scope and magnitude it loses its cutting edge, if you don't mind a somewhat bad pun.
That is not a matter of nature, it is not God's will, it is a direct decision by this government. One of the stupidest, most futile and dishonest decisions in the history of trade in this country is now coming home to roost and we are seeing the impact directly in British Columbia, northern Ontario and right across this country. What was a thriving, bountiful industry is now being put into real dilemma as to its future and as to whether it can continue to provide for an active export market.
There is a responsibility by the minister of forestry because his colleagues have failed. The Minister for International Trade, who somehow has believed that his primary occupation these days is to provide for the destruction of the fish industry off the east coast, has failed miserably in his primary responsibility, which is to do something about the trade area.
Government Orders
I want to quote from the Minister for International Trade on April 7, 1989, just a few short months ago. He said: "The economic circumstances (for the forest industry) have changed-Therefore we think it would be reasonable for changes to be made-Whether the United States will agree is another question. We have pointed out these facts..(but) there have been no formal negotiations-".
I checked a few days ago and there are still no negotiations. There is still no initiative by the minister for trade. There is still no honest effort to try to come to grips with the fact that the Canadian forest industry faces the drastic impact of new stumpage fees in British Columbia and the export tax in the other provinces, to say nothing of the major increase in the Canadian dollar.
I have a very simple question for the minister of forestry. Once his department is there, once he gets in the harness, once he gets that bigger car and that new staff and all the trappings, is he going to start renegotiating this agreement? Is he going to tackle the fundamental flaw that faces the Canadian forestry industry? Rather than going out and making great speeches about the green ghetto and all the nice pieces of nostalgia he liked to refer to in his opening speeches, is he going to do something serious? Is he really going to tackle the problem that faces the industry which he knows well? I was within three feet of his office only a few days ago, and there they were busy, the computers were whirring, and the typewriters were going. But I have not seen the minister whirring and going. I want to know if we are going to get some action once this department is passed and if, for a change, we are going to have a minister in this government to stand up to the Americans, someone who is going to stand up for Canadian industry and say let us start doing some serious negotiation.
It is not a matter of changing policy. Even his colleague, the minister of trade, when we can find him, is prepared to admit that there is a serious problem. He knows that negotiations have to take place, he knows that something has to happen, but he is incapable of doing it. I know that the Minister of Forestry with his new department deeply cares about his region-he had better or he will not get elected next time-but aside from that, his own sense of humanity and well-being would require him to do something. Is he going to do it, or is he going to find himself, once again, captive to that peculiar paranoia that is so omnipresent, so totally in existence on the other side that people are fearful of

Government Orders
standing up on behalf of this country and its major industry?
If they do not, Mr. Speaker, this industry is going to be facing increasingly tougher times. As international competition gets tougher and tougher the industry will find itself without the capital. There is a capital grab by the province of British Columbia. There is an export tax which steals it from the saw mills in northern Ontario and prairie regions of Canada.
That is the primary task. I am more than happy to relinquish my remaining few minutes to the Minister of Forestry if he is prepared to say here and now publicly that that will be his first priority, that the minute he is given the new baton of office and the door is open, he is going to buy himself an air ticket to Washington and start saying to the Americans: "The game is over. We have had enough fun and games with this particular little jaunt. You have now been able to exploit us for three years. Is it not time we got down and did something honest and even?". Is the Minister of Forestry now prepared to say that he will undertake that kind of initiative?
I would even recommend, as a member of the opposition, that when the minister leaves Washington, he buys a ticket to Tokyo and starts renegotiating the decision dealing with the Japanese tariffs on lumber. Perhaps he would do the full world-wide tour and hit Geneva where he will make an appeal against that decision, so we can again open up the Japanese market and not lose it on a technicality. I will not blame the government for making the odd technical mistake. However, the government makes more than the odd mistake. It makes them about 100 times a day.
We lost that case with Japan on a technical argument. It is going to take some initiative, motivation, and some minister with will, purpose, energy, thought and creativity, to start representing this area rather than just occupying a warm seat around the cabinet table.
This is not based upon what might have been. This is based upon hard fact. I recall very well one of the minister's predecessors, the since retired Minister for International Trade, who negotiated that softwood lumber agreement in tough battles on the beaches of Hawaii, fighting for Canadians every moment as she dashed
herself with suntan lotion. She said this would be the greatest thing that ever happened to the lumber industry. This would solve our problems. Do you recall what she said, Mr. Speaker? You were in the house. She said: "This is a great victory for Canada". Well, Mr. Speaker, you convince the lumber industry that has just lost $352 million last year in net earnings that this is a great victory for Canada.
I simply say to the minister, who I am pleased to see is in the house, that he knows what his job is. I do not say that it is an easy task. I am here simply to urge him and to pray with him that he will take it on. Unless there is a change made, unless we can get a renegotiation of that agreement, unless we can end that agreement, then the future of the forest industry is dim indeed.
For all the other rhetoric that he may provide, and for all the other speeches and policy papers that he may want to introduce, until he addresses himself and his government to the single most serious problem facing the forest industry, he will not have done his job.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition will wait with interest to see if this new ministry of forestry is simply a hollow shell providing more creature comforts for the minister of forestry or whether in fact it will do something serious about tackling a problem facing one of the most important industries in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate in today's debate on this most important legislation. We see before us Bill C-29, an act to establish the department of forestry. I say thank you to the minister. We have waited years and years and years for this. Finally, the government was embarrassed enough to have to do something. I want to say to the Minister of Forestry who is here with us that I remember vividly as a matter of fact way back in March, 1984, when our Prime Minister stated the following: "As a government we would create a department of forestry in order to ensure that the problems now facing this industry are dealt with before it is too late." That was in 1984. We waited all of 1984, all of 1985, all of 1986, all of 1987, and here we are, Mr. Speaker, and finally the government is now going to introduce legislation. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend from Winnipeg who just spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, we waited decades, of course, and never had anything at all from

the Liberals on this initiative. So I think that their criticisms are somewhat hollow.
As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me, and I believe that it does accurately, when the Leader of the Official Opposition was visiting Prince George, British Columbia, he indicated that it was Liberal policy not to establish a department of forests, that it ought to be within a larger umbrella of industrial development. I simply point that out to my hon. friend from Winnipeg in case that slipped his mind.
Obviously what we are seeing here is an issue that is not a high priority. If it is a high priority, the government would have moved back in 1984, 1985,1986,1987 or 1988. It is not a high priority. So let us hope that once we get this legislation in place the Minister of Forests will actually start treating the forest industry as he ought.
When you consider the number of people who are directly and indirectly employed in this industry, which is in excess of 800,000, when you recognize that more than 300 communities in this country depend exclusively on the forest industry for their economic base, and when you recognize that in terms of Canada's trade it is forestry and forest products that are at the top of the list and so critical in terms of our foreign trade, we have to hope now that it becomes somewhat of a priority because it certainly has not been one up until this point.
I must say that the creation of a forestry department is welcome news. Obviously, when one looks carefully through Bill C-29 we find that it is woefully inadequate. We see that it is certainly an opening now. It provides us as parliamentarians with a window of opportunity to not simply accept this bill, which is inadequate in so many ways, but to enhance it now through an appropriate set of amendments. Our forestry spokesman, the hon. member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, has already outlined carefully what we would like to see as ways and means of enhancing this legislation.
I simply want to refer to them because I think it is critical that the Minister of Forests know right at this point, at least some of the major initiatives that we are going to propose. One, of course, is adding to the annual report provisions. When you see in the legislation that there will be an annual report, unfortunately, it will be
Government Orders
like most annual reports of most departments, a glowing comment about the wonderful minister and the wonderful people involved-utter and total propaganda nonsense by and large. This is too serious to play politics with, as we have seen played too often in these annual reports.
Therefore, we are going to include some amendments to the legislation to ensure that the annual report reflect and give us an update on the forest inventory across the country, the employment statistics, the number of jobs created and developed in the various sectors, the most recent trade figures, as well as outlining and suggesting a number of new initiatives and proposals for the forthcoming year. These are simply a number of things we would like to see in the annual report. We want to see this legislation to ensure that we do not get just some namby-pamby propaganda.
Second, we feel that it is appropriate that in the legislation itself there be a call for a First Ministers' Conference on the forest industry each year. Let us face it. There is no more important sector when you consider that people in every single province and in every single territory are involved in this industry. There are hundreds of thousands of people directly involved in this industry. Is it too much to ask that our Prime Minister and the first ministers of each province and territory get together and discuss the challenges facing this critical sector on a five-year basis? We figure that is important.
Then, of course, the ministers of forestry ought to get together every year to discuss the challenges facing the industry and to identify solutions to those challenges.
Also, we want to propose the establishment of a forest trade commissioner. After all, I think we all recognize that now in our shakes and shingles industry 90 per cent of it goes into foreign markets. A good portion of our pulp and paper, lumber and plywood is taking advantage of newly developing foreign markets, but there is much that can be done. There are many more initiatives that we ought to be taking in terms of selling our products which are top rate, top of the line, first rate overseas. We would like to suggest that a forest trade commissioner would be a step in advancing that type of initiative.

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
I think also that we need in this legislation provisions that will ensure new jobs are created in this industry. We often look about the country and ask ourselves how could we put more Canadians to work meaningfully. I do not mean snap your finger and create a job schemes that are good for maybe three or four months or whatever. We have seen those in the past. That is not the solution in terms of full-time employment opportunities.
It is interesting that in the central interior of British Columbia, and the Minister would certainly be aware of this, a number of municipalities have commissioned studies to look to see what needs to be done in terms of enhancing that forest resource and how many jobs would be created as a result. The figures are absolutely astounding. If we were doing in our country what we should be doing, that is, enhancing, developing and nurturing our forest resource which means thinning, spacing and fertilizing and impending programs for disease, fire and pest control, road building, research and development, and so on, there are tens of thousands of jobs that could be developed, if we are serious about sustaining that forest resource.
These are long-term jobs. If you take the central part of British Columbia alone, there are literally thousands of jobs that could be developed to enhance that forest resource. I cannot think of a better investment. Rather than provide money for various income support programs, whether it is welfare on one hand or unemployment insurance on the other, if we could take that same initiative and develop hundreds and thousands of jobs that must be developed. This is not something that could be or should be. It must be. We have no alternative.
We say this is what should be done in this legislation to implement programs in terms of proper tree planting. We cannot do it overnight. We recognize that. We certainly ought to have a crash program put into place because there are many people who understand the wood industry. They have lost their jobs over the years and could very quickly put that expertise and experience to work, to say nothing of the thousands of experienced tree planters who would enjoy working full time in
developing the forest resources of the country. We put that as a very high priority in terms of amendments that my hon. friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley will be providing once we get into the committee stage.
I also want to refer to the FRDAs. I have here the Forest Resource Development Agreement between Canada and British Columbia. I notice that it expires in March 1990. Just a few months from now it will expire.
Many of us from British Columbia are becoming quite concerned with this expiry date approaching because we have noticed that when these agreements expired in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba the government did not renew them. They just said: "That's it, we are going to abandon the forest industry. We are going to abandon working with the provinces to enhance the forest resource in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba". Here is British Columbia coming up next.
What this means-the writing is clearly on the wall-is that this government has no plans to sign a new agreement between British Columbia and the federal government to enhance and support the forest industry. This is critical, of course, in a province where the forest industry is the number one economic sector.
We would suggest that the government show that this matter of the forest industry is a priority. It should commit immediately to signing a new agreement with the provinces by which the federal government and the provincial governments can develop a long-term forestry strategy to ensure that the forest industry not only is maintained in a healthy condition but is going to be there for future generations. This of course means that we have to spend some time developing those lands that have not be sufficiently planted. We have got thousands and tens of thousands of hectares of forest land that we refer to as NSR, non-satisfactory restocked lands. These are forest lands where companies have gone in, usually clear cut, logged off all the trees and just left. If that is not insanity, I do not know what is. Other forest producing nations look at us, scratch their heads and think we must be crazy to cut down tress and not restock the land. That is exactly what has been done.
September 29, 1989

British Columbia, of course, had the very unfortunate experience to say to the forest industry: "We want you to monitor what you are doing. We want you to be seif-policing. We want you to be self-managing". They tried that for a year. The results were so dramatically negative that they have had to renege on that. This makes the case that legislation at the provincial and federal level is critical if we are going to maintain that forest resource.
Up until now the province of British Columbia and Canada had an agreement which involved $300 million over five years for reforestation and silviculture. That is $30 million a year, which I think is a pittance. I think if we are serious we have got to increase this, say, to a $1 billion over the next five to ten years.


Mr. Redway:: Why not?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The minister says: "Why not?" I applaud him for that comment. Why not spend that kind of money and put a few tens of thousands of Canadians to work meaningfully? You might ask where are we going to get $1 billion. May I suggest where? By implementing a minimum corporate tax like they have done in the United States. It would generate a few billion dollars each year by doing what President Reagan did in 1986. He introduced a minimum corporate tax because he felt that if you have as we have in Canada tens of thousands of corporations that do not pay any income tax at all they should pay their fair share. They should not pay too much or excessively; they should pay something. It is unfair when the welding shop down at the comer of the street is paying tax but the Royal Bank of Canada or General Motors pays no tax. We in the New Democratic Party say that is unfair.
If the Minister is looking for a source of revenue so that in fact he could put $1 billion into the agreements between Canada and the province of British Columbia over a five to ten year period, may I suggest that that is one place where he can start to look.
I also want to make a point, and I say this as an honorary member of IWA Canada Local 1-417, that it is time that we stopped expecting those people involved in the forest industry to pay for our parks, to pay for our wilderness areas and our recreational lands. If we as a country want, and we should want, wilderness areas set aside, parks set aside, conservation areas set aside, which are laudable and necessary goals for our country-we have even set 12 per cent as a guideline in terms of lands that should be set aside for these uses-then it should
not be those people employed in the woods industry that should pay for this. It should be society that pays for this.
We need to find some mechanism to put in place so that it is not pitting those companies and workers in the forest industry against those people who want to set aside these lands for uses other than forestry. We need, if I can use the parlance of the free trade deal, a dispute settlement mechanism whereby we can have a process, if there is a dispute over the future of certain lands that could be harvested for forest industry reasons, to get away from emotionalism and have reasonable decision making brought forward. Then we can have, if you like, lands that will be harvested in terms of the forest industry and other lands that will be set aside for wilderness conservation and park zones.
I think this is becoming paramount. This emotional crisis that we have to deal with on a valley to valley basis must stop in this country. I would like to see the minister of forests, as a result of the development of this new ministry, playing a leadership role. If he could do that in the next three years he would be making quite a contribution to this country. I will tell you that my hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley will be urging him at every opportunity to do just that.
If this is the kind of leadership that we can expect from the federal government? A lot of people ask: "What is the role of the federal government in terms of the forest industry?" After all, our Constitution gives this area, if you like, to the provinces. It places resource development and so on under provincial jurisdiction.
There are all kinds of initiatives that can be taken. I have identified research and development. I have identified the whole matter of leadership and partnership in reforestation and silviculture. If we had in our country a long-term agreed upon forest strategy involving those people employed in the industry, the investors, the regional governments, local governments, provincial governments and federal governments, can you imagine what kind of a dynamic forest industry we could have in this country? But that requires leadership.
I am pleased to say that Bill C-29, an act to establish the department of forestry, is a step toward establishing and accepting that leadership role. I encourage all of us to do whatever we can as we develop this legislation in the next number of weeks to rally around, to not only introduce this legislation which is pretty weak, inadequate and lacking but to develop a bill and to develop the resulting department of forestry that actually will accomplish what every single thoughtful parliamentarian

September 29, 1989
Government Orders
who understands this industry wants it to do, that is to say, provide leadership and to ensure that Canada's number one export industry is not only maintained but is encouraged to grow and more particularly is there for future generations to work in and to appreciate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.44 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 2, 1989